Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (per-day suitability with rule, plus auspicious hours/choghadiyas and Abhijit muhurta) and warns against misrepresentation. However, it does not address parameter-related behavior (e.g., what happens if date_from/date_to are null, or how city/geonameid are resolved) or error handling, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded with a clear example, and the output format is described efficiently. The warnings about general vs. specific muhurta and the 31-day limit earn their place, though the caution against misuse could be trimmed. Each sentence contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented, and the description covers the main use case and constraints. However, with five parameters and zero schema description coverage, the agent is left uncertain about how to set city/geonameid/lang and whether a date range is required. The description should state which location field to use and that a date range is effectively needed for meaningful results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that date_from/date_to define the interval and imposes the 31-day maximum, which adds value. But it does not explain city, geonameid, or lang at all, nor state that a date range is effectively required despite the schema defaults. The compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the tool's action: finding favorable time windows (muhurta) over a given date range, with a concrete example ('find good dates from October 1 to 20'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from specific-event muhurta (wedding, housewarming, purchase), which separates it from sibling tools and clarifies scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: this is only a general selection, not for specific events, and instructs the agent to tell users this directly. It also sets the usage boundary of a 31-day maximum interval, beyond which the question becomes month selection. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusions are explicit and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.