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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds that every pass/fail reason and a draft source key are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about cost, computation intensity, or limits inherent to ranking many windows.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the operation and the ranking factors with no filler. It is efficient, though the factor list is long enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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 need not be explained, but for a 10-parameter tool with a nested natal object and an anyOf location constraint, the description leaves parameter and prerequisite handling entirely to the schema, which itself only covers 30% of parameters.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters including a nested natal object, so the description is expected to compensate but does not. It implies a bounded date range and that Tara/Chandra Bala are optional (natal-dependent), but explains none of place/latitude/longitude/timezone alternatives, timezoneOffset, limit, or natal requirements.

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 and resource (ranks candidate Muhurta windows) plus the bounded date-range scope and the factor set used for ranking. It is distinct from siblings like analyze_chart_topic, but it never names or contrasts the very close siblings find_muhurta_with_natal_fit and find_marriage_windows, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite two obvious overlapping siblings (find_muhurta_with_natal_fit, find_marriage_windows). Usage can only be inferred from the described computation.

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