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

Rich beyond annotations: discloses the empty-result behavior (empty_state with classical delay explanation, next_good, 14-day lookahead within the Timing horizon, fallback suggestion), the closed-world operation (saved/supplied coordinates only, no geocoding or publishing), and that auth/audit/rate limits apply. It does not explain why readOnlyHint=false despite being a 'find' call, leaving that inference to the audit-events mention.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and precise, but the description then spends substantial length on return-value details already covered by the output schema and on a list of negative capability statements (no geocoding, web search, external recipients, publishing) that could be condensed.

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?

Covers prerequisites, date format, range bound, and empty-result handling, which is enough to invoke correctly for a 5-parameter tool with an output schema. The remaining gaps are the undocumented language and include_neutral parameters, which materially affect 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies date_start/date_end format (YYYY-MM-DD), the 32-day range limit, and that activity is a 'named Vedara activity', but it never explains language or include_neutral, leaving two of five parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('Find personalized Muhurta windows') for a named activity, plus the scoping constraint (max 32-day inclusive range) that separates it from siblings like get_my_timing and list_timing_activities. An agent can identify the task 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?

Gives clear preconditions: a connected Vedara account with a completed birth profile, and a bounded date range. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as get_my_timing or list_timing_activities, so the routing is only implied by the activity-based framing.

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