divine_get_muhurat_hora

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'auspicious timings for the day with muhurat details', which is useful but does not disclose specifics like whether the output includes multiple Hora periods, the format of timings, or any limitations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds a small amount of context about the return value. It is concise and free of filler, though it could be slightly more informative about the output structure.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations that cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the large sibling set of muhurat and timing tools, the description lacks enough context to help an agent choose this tool over similar ones. It is adequate but not complete for disambiguation.

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%, but the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (day, month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the 0% coverage. However, the schema is self-sufficient, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Hora (planetary hour) timings') for a given date and location, and mentions 'muhurat details'. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like divine_get_auspicious_timings or divine_get_choghadiya, which also deal with time-based auspiciousness.

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 usage for getting Hora timings for a date and location, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as divine_get_choghadiya or divine_get_auspicious_timings. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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