Muhurat: General auspicious window

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the 50-credit cost, the required search_window_start, and the criteria used (Pushya/Hasta nakshatras, shubha tithis).

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, followed by the selection criteria and useful call metadata. Every sentence and bracketed line adds operational value with no filler.

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, annotations, and output schema together make the tool understandable at a high level. However, for an 8-parameter tool with only 25% schema description coverage, the description leaves important call-shaping details about location and ayanamsa handling unaddressed.

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 25%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions search_window_start as required and alludes to top-N. It does not explain latitude/longitude, ayanamsaId vs ayanamsa, search_window_end, or how location affects the universal Panchang criteria.

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 states a specific purpose: a generic favourable-window finder used when no activity-specific Muhurat applies, with examples (Sankalpa, prayer, fallback). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many activity-specific muhurat siblings by framing itself as the universal/fallback option.

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?

It explicitly gives the condition for use: when no specific activity applies, as a fallback. It implies the alternative class (activity-specific muhurat tools) rather than naming a specific sibling, so it is clear but not maximally explicit about routing.

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