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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope boundaries but says nothing about what a result looks like (a verdict? a window? reasons?) or how the purpose enum affects the answer, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the affirmative trigger is front-loaded before the exclusions. Every clause carries routing information.

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 read-only, idempotent screening tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description never hints at the shape of the answer (pass/fail, reasons, timing windows).

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 100% with an enum on purpose and patterns/lengths on date and city, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 3 is the baseline. The description's prose purpose list (marriage, vehicle purchase, property registration) roughly maps to enum values (vivah, vehicle, property) but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('check whether a specific date works') and enumerates the five screened purposes, which maps cleanly to the purpose enum. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling find_muhurat, leaving the agent to infer the split between 'screen this date' and 'find dates'.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user asks whether a specific date works...') and a solid when-not list excluding horoscope matching, guaranteed outcomes, remedies, and family tradition decisions. It stops short of pointing to the alternative tool (find_muhurat) for the cases it declines, so routing is only half-solved.

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