Generate Muhurta Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description supplies what they cannot: a 5,000-credit Tier 7 charge (~50% of a free monthly budget) and a confirmation requirement. It also explains the scoring methodology and the two output formats; the only gap is what happens to the rendered report afterwards (returned inline vs. retrievable via astroway_reports_history).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, then methodology, then parameter/format notes, then cost. The engine/classical-source detail is dense but earns its place by explaining what the ranking rationale means; the only minor waste is the API-path shorthand an agent cannot act on.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the definition still covers purpose, methodology, output format, activity taxonomy source, and a prominent cost gate. What remains undocumented (topN, window bounds, whitelabel fields) is a schema-quality issue rather than a missing behavior.

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 18%, so the description must carry the weight, and it barely does: it clarifies `activity` (one of the 12 from /muhurta/types) and the format switch, which is not even in the schema. `topN`, `search_window_start`/`_end`, `language`, and the large `whitelabel` object are entirely unexplained.

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 (render) and resource (A4 report of auspicious dates for a chosen activity over a search window), plus the exact ranking logic used. The reference to '/vedic/muhurat/*' implicitly distinguishes this report generator from the per-activity muhurta data siblings (e.g. astroway_vedic_muhurat_marriage).

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?

Gives the operative pre-condition – premium cost, 'Confirm with user before invoking' – and the format switch ('PDF default; ?format=html returns HTML'). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it substitutes for (the per-activity muhurta endpoints or astroway_reports_generate), leaving that inference to the agent.

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