Muhurat: month view for one ceremony

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value beyond them: cost tier (50 credits, Tier 3), required parameters, the endpoint, and the scope limitation that no lagna windows are computed by the scanners. It also explains that barredBy holds the factors with negative weight, which clarifies the semantics of a returned field. What it does not disclose is that latitude/longitude silently default to 0 (equator/UTC), a behavioral detail that materially changes results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior in one dense sentence, then a short scope caveat and a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). The result-field enumeration is long but earns its place by telling the agent what a call yields; the sentence is run-on and jargon-heavy but free of 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the definition is close to complete; the field list is arguably redundant with the output schema. The remaining material gaps are the silent 0 defaults for latitude/longitude (and thus which location's sunrise drives the panchang) and the absence of routing guidance against the per-activity siblings.

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 coverage is 57%, so the schema carries most of the load (month pattern, activity enum, ayanamsa enum and its equivalence to ayanamsaId, timezoneOffset hour semantics are all already documented there). The description reinforces the YYYY-MM month and the activity-key source but adds nothing about the four undocumented geolocation/ayanamsaId parameters, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource: judges 'every day of month' for one 'activity' using 'the same sunrise-panchang scorer as /vedic/muhurat/<activity>'. It also enumerates the per-day output (tithi, vara, nakshatra, yoga, karana, score, rating, suitable, barredBy) plus goodDates and bestDate, so an agent knows exactly what this tool computes versus a single-day muhurat lookup.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: month-scoped scanning for one ceremony, with the parenthetical pointing at GET /muhurta/types for valid activity keys and at the per-activity endpoint as the same scorer. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing versus the many astroway_vedic_muhurat_<activity> siblings, nor any stated precondition for handing in latitude/longitude.

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