Life-area timing: property and vehicles

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, closed-world computation, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing how windows are generated: cut at every Vimshottari period change (pratyantar by default, antar), at every Jupiter or Saturn sign change, and each window carrying `score`, `components` (dasha, transit, kp), fired rules, `basis` and a `source` key. It stops short of describing pagination or limits on the number of windows returned, and the trailing 'Double transit (K.N.' sentence is cut off, leaving one behavior unexplained.

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 content is front-loaded with the astrological basis and ends with output shape, which is a sensible order. But it is written as a dense run-on with stacked parentheses (lands, vehicles, KP groups, level), and the final clause 'Double transit (K.N.' is truncated mid-thought, which is a real structural defect rather than mere verbosity.

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?

For a 50-credit Tier 3 computation with an output schema present, the description supplies enough — computation inputs, window-cutting logic, and output field meanings — that an agent can call it and interpret results without the output schema alone. The missing pieces are the truncated double-transit explanation and any statement of how this tool relates to the other life-area timing endpoints.

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 100%, so every parameter (body birth data, `years`, `fromDate`, `level`, `minScore`, `kp`) is already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the defaults (1 to 20 years, default 5; pratyantar default). The one addition is the relationship between `level` and how windows are cut, which is a mild elaboration rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb-and-resource pair (property and vehicle timing windows) and states the exact astrological basis: 4th house, its lord, Mars for land, Venus for vehicles, 11th supporting, KP group 4/11/12. That level of detail distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling timing tools for career, marriage, children, and the generic astroway_vedic_timing_all.

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 by the domain framing (one life area, a span scanned from `fromDate` over `years`), and the window-cutting rules hint at what kind of output to expect. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over astroway_vedic_timing_all or astroway_vedic_muhurat_property_purchase, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema enforces.

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