Muhurat: Name change

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so those needn't be restated. The description adds real operational context beyond the annotations: the credit cost (50, Tier 3), the endpoint, and the required parameter. It does not mention pagination or result shape, but the output schema covers return values.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the metadata block is compact and scannable. The nakshatra list is long but arguably informative rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and cost/endpoint are supplied. However, with 8 parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the incomplete parameter story leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 25% and the description adds almost nothing about the seven non-required parameters (topN, latitude, longitude, ayanamsaId, search_window_end). Only the required search_window_start is called out, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage that the guidance requires.

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+resource: an auspicious-window scanner for legal or sacramental name change. This distinguishes it as a muhurat election tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very close sibling astroway_vedic_muhurat_naming_ceremony.

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 phrase 'legal or sacramental name change' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Critically, the description never explains how it differs from the naming-ceremony sibling, which an agent would likely confuse it with.

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