Muhurta

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add what they don't cover. It does: the tool is standalone, activity values are not validated locally with bad slugs surfacing as MCP INTERNAL_ERROR, and from_date/to_date ordering plus span rules are enforced upstream. It also links the full output/error contract, covering the remaining behavioral surface.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the rest is organized into terse, clearly labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) plus a single docs link. Every section carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no filler; the only minor wart is the slightly ambiguous 'slugs above' reference.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, a nested location object, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential decision surface: purpose, standalone workflow, follow-up step, parameter error behavior, and sibling disambiguation. The unenumerated activity slug list and unspecified span rules are the only real gaps, and both are mitigated by the docs link and schema examples.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description pushes above it by adding error and validation semantics: activity must match a supported English slug and is not validated locally, and date-ordering/span rules are enforced upstream. The main shortfall is that the supported slugs are referenced ('above') rather than enumerated, leaving the agent to infer them from schema examples.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Searches'), a distinct resource (a date span for top-scoring muhurta windows for a named activity), the astrological inputs (Panchanga, Choghadiya, classical siddhi flags), and a location. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' block explicitly differentiates it from asterwise_get_choghadiya and asterwise_get_panchanga, so an agent can identify this tool without opening any schema.

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 WORKFLOW section states the tool is standalone (no BEFORE prerequisite) and names asterwise_get_panchanga as the AFTER step for drilling into limb detail, giving explicit sequential guidance. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section names both confusable siblings and states the discriminating conditions — single-day enumeration without activity scoring (choghadiya) versus unranked single-day limb detail (panchanga) — which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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