Life-area timing: marriage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing how windows are produced (cut at every Vimshottari period change and every Jupiter/Saturn sign change), that each window carries score, components and fired rules with basis and source keys. It omits cost/credit consumption and rate-limit context for a 50-credit call, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded and dense with the right domain terms, but the text is a single run-on sentence packed with jargon, and it terminates mid-phrase at 'Double transit (K.N.' — an incomplete trailing fragment that adds noise and no information. Trimming the fragment and splitting the parameter paragraph out would make it materially better.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it still sketches the window shape usefully. For a tool with a nested birth-data body, the astrology inputs are covered by the schema and the description covers the scan semantics. The truncated final sentence and the absence of any hint about the credit cost or the difference from timing_all leave small residual gaps.

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% and the nested body fields (years, fromDate, level, minScore, kp) already carry their own descriptions. The description restates years (1-20, default 5), fromDate and the pratyantar-vs-antar default but adds little new meaning, and it never explains how minScore filters windows or what the default of 1 actually means. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 deliverable: marriage windows derived from the 7th house, its lord, Venus/Jupiter karakas and KP groups 2/7/11, then returned as scored windows. That is far more than a restatement of the title and lets an agent tell this apart from generic timing siblings by subject matter. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with astroway_vedic_timing_all or astroway_vedic_muhurat_marriage, so it does not fully close the sibling-differentiation gap.

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: the description establishes that this scans a span for one life area, which suggests when to reach for it, and it documents the span controls. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, even though muhurat_marriage (electional, pick a date) and timing_all (all life areas) are the obvious confusables.

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