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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint not present in the schema (seven-day maximum range) and a scope exclusion, which is useful. It stops short of describing error behavior or how natal fitting alters output, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core behavior (ranking a bounded range) is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of completeness rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters, a nested natal object, an enum, and an anyOf coordinate/place requirement, the description is thin. It omits the natal-fitting semantics, the required input combinations, and activity handling. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation-relevant context is largely absent.

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, so the description must carry significant weight. It only implies a date-range cap that loosely maps to startDate/endDate and says nothing about the natal object, the activity enum, the place-vs-coordinates alternative, or the limit parameter. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a verb (ranks) and resource (a maximum seven-day range) plus the techniques used, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it never mentions the natal-chart fitting that distinguishes it from the sibling find_muhurta, and it never explicitly says it returns muhurta windows. An agent cannot tell this apart from find_muhurta from the description alone.

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 provides one explicit exclusion ('Medical procedures are unsupported'), which is genuine scope guidance. But it never says when to prefer this over find_muhurta, find_elected_lagna, or find_marriage_windows, and gives no prerequisites for the natal input. Implied usage with a single carve-out.

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