divine_get_muhurat_business_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. The description adds the behavioral scope (month-scoped, location-based, returns auspicious dates with muhurat details). It doesn't disclose more (e.g., default language effect, how dates are formatted, or potential localized responses), but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is reasonable.

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 description is two short sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a one-line summary of the return type. No fluff, though it could be slightly more informative while remaining 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?

For a read-only month-scoped muhurat tool with a well-documented input schema and an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimally complete: it tells what it returns. But given the sibling set includes multiple muhurat tools, a sentence explicitly distinguishing this one from divine_get_muhurat_marriage or others would improve completeness. The description also lacks any note on how to interpret the returned auspicious dates or any edge cases (e.g., no auspicious dates in a month).

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 0%, and the description doesn't explain any parameters. However, the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan). Since schema descriptions are rich, the tool description adds no extra value on parameters, but the baseline is 3 for having a well-documented schema. The 'params' object is also described in the schema as 'Input for month-scoped Muhurat Finder APIs', which is sufficient.

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 the tool returns auspicious dates with muhurat details for Business Start in a given month and location. It names the specific resource (Business Start Muhurat) and distinguishes from siblings (other muhurat tools like marriage, house entering, etc.) through the 'Business Start' qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the very similar 'divine_get_muhurat_*' siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent distinguishing among them.

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?

The description implies it is used for business start muhurat in a given month, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus other muhurat tools or any prerequisites (e.g., needing accurate lat/lon/tzone or the difference from a daily muhurat tool). It doesn't give exclusions or alternatives, but the 'Business Start' specificity gives some implicit guidance for an agent seeking business-related auspicious timings.

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