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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: natal promise acts as a hard gate, and returned windows are uncalibrated, auditable, and carry learnable factor weights. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety it clears the bar.

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, front-loaded sentence that states gating and output in 19 words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail rather than being merely concise.

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?

Even with an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the definition is incomplete for an 11-parameter fusion tool. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, so an agent cannot confidently select or invoke it from the description alone.

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 27% across 11 parameters, and the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not clarify date/time formats, the topic enum, startIso/endIso semantics, or the place vs. coordinates fallback, leaving much of the input contract 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 and resource: applies natal promise as a hard gate and returns timing windows. It names the fusion of timing systems (title) and output type, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_transit_activation or find_marriage_windows.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The hard-gate phrasing implies a precondition (natal promise), but there is no explicit direction on when to choose this fused timing tool over discrete transit, dasha, or muhurta tools.

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