divine_get_muhurat_marriage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds output context ('Returns auspicious dates in the month with muhurat details') but no operational caveats such as rate limits or auth requirements. 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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first defines the core purpose, the second clarifies the output. There is minor redundancy between 'Get the Marriage Muhurat' and 'Returns auspicious dates,' but no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 muhurat tool with an existing output schema and well-described parameters, the description covers the primary use case and result content. Required fields are fully specified in the schema, so no critical information is missing. Details like language and timezone handling are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

The input schema's $defs block provides explicit descriptions for all parameters (month, year, place, lat, lon, tzone, lan), so schema description coverage is effectively high. The description only restates 'month and location' and adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already gives. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('Marriage Muhurat (auspicious wedding dates)') scoped to 'a given month and location.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling muhurat tools like divine_get_muhurat_house_entering or divine_get_muhurat_vehicle_purchase by naming the wedding-specific use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a marriage muhurat for a specific month and location is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling muhurat tools, but the marriage-specific wording gives unambiguous when-to-use guidance. No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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