divine_get_muhurat_property_purchase

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a return-value statement ('Returns auspicious dates in the month with muhurat details'), which is useful, but it does not cover edge cases such as months with no auspicious dates or output localisation. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, repetition, or boilerplate. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the return content is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated. However, with multiple required inputs and many sibling muhurat tools, the description is minimally complete: it does not explain how location/timezone inputs are used or explicitly distinguish itself from the other muhurat_* siblings beyond its name. Acceptable for a simple lookup, but leaves gaps an agent must resolve from context.

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 context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the prose description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only mentions 'month and location', ignoring the other required inputs like year, latitude, longitude, and timezone, and it gives no format or semantics for them. Even though the nested schema contains field descriptions in the given JSON, the description itself adds little over the parameter names.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Property Purchase Muhurat'), and scopes it by month and location. The sibling list includes several muhurat_* tools, and 'Property Purchase' clearly disambiguates this one from vehicle, marriage, and business variants. The second sentence adds what the caller receives: auspicious dates with muhurat details.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite many sibling muhurat tools. The intended usage is strongly implied by the name and 'Property Purchase' wording, so an agent can infer the domain, but there are no routing cues or exclusions.

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