Life-area timing: foreign travel and settlement

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: windows are cut at every Vimshottari period change and every Jupiter/Saturn sign change, rules carry a provenance label (classical/modern/kp) with a source key, and the author flags that most rules are modern conventions. The value is undercut by the text being truncated mid-sentence ('Double transit (K.N.'), which leaves the disclosure incomplete.

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 clause, which is good, but the body is dense and partly duplicates schema defaults (years 1-20 default 5, level pratyantar by default). The description ends mid-sentence, so the structure does not resolve cleanly.

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, yet the description still spends sentences explaining window fields (score, components, basis, source), which is some duplication but also useful orientation. The truncated ending means the description does not fully deliver what it set out to explain, leaving the agent to fall back on the schema for the remainder.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning not present in the schema: `level` determines which dasha lords are scored and therefore how many/how long the windows are, and Jupiter/Saturn sign changes are additional cut points the schema never mentions. Defaults for `years`, `level`, `fromDate` and `minScore` are largely repeated from the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 names a specific resource ('Foreign travel and settlement windows') and the technique behind it (12th/9th houses, lords, Rahu, KP group 3/9/12), so an agent knows exactly which life area this times. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as astroway_vedic_muhurat_travel or astroway_vedic_timing_all, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: the agent can infer 'call this when the user asks when they will travel or settle abroad.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the sibling all-life-areas timing tool, and no note on prerequisites such as needing an accurate birth time for the Lagna-derived houses.

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