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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the scoring mechanism (Panchanga factors + task-specific nakshatra rules) and ranked output. It does not state whether the operation is read-only/side-effect-free or mention any rate/permission constraints, but for a deterministic computation tool the disclosure is strong.

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?

Labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHAT IT DOES / RETURNS / NEXT) are front-loaded and each sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 the brief RETURNS summary is sufficient, and the description covers purpose, trigger, and follow-up. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, which is the one thing the rich structured fields do not supply.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at task_type values (marriage, travel, business, etc.) and says nothing about date formats, latitude/longitude meaning, or the timezone_offset default, leaving five required parameters essentially undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find favorable Muhurta windows') and immediately scopes it as scoring days in a date range by Panchanga/nakshatra rules. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_daily_panchanga or ask_prashna, which are named or implied as adjacent but different.

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?

The WHEN TO USE block names the exact trigger ('best dates or time windows to start an activity') and enumerates concrete task domains, and the NEXT line routes the agent to ask_cosmic_advisor for interpretation. This is explicit when-to-use and alternative routing.

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