Electional-Day Suitability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot convey: cost (10 credits, Tier 1). It says nothing about what the suitability result contains or what makes a date unsuitable, but with an output schema present that gap is tolerable.

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?

Short and front-loaded, so no time is wasted. However, four bracketed metadata lines are largely template scaffolding, and two of them (endpoint path, required-parameter list) duplicate information already in the schema rather than earning their 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?

The description is thin for a 13-parameter astrological judgement tool with low schema coverage, and the unexplained 'venture type' leaves a real hole. Against that, an output schema exists so return values need no prose, and annotations plus the cost line cover the operational basics; a 4 reflects adequate-but-not-rich completeness rather than a fully specified definition.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. The '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' line merely repeats what the schema already marks as required, and undocumented parameters (city, name, zodiacType, cosmogram, houseSystem, ayanamsaId) plus the undefined 'venture type' notion are left untouched.

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 one-line sentence names the resource (a proposed launch date) and the judgement being made (suitability), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it references a 'venture type' selector that does not exist among the 13 schema parameters, leaving the actual computation ambiguous.

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?

Nothing states when to pick this over the many adjacent timing tools listed as siblings (astroway_vedic_muhurat_business_start, astroway_business_expansion_timing, astroway_chinese_tong_shu_select, astroway_financial_lucky_day). The phrase 'proposed launch date' only weakly implies the use case; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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