Muhurat — General auspicious window

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying it returns 'top-N days against universal Panchang criteria' and uses specific nakshatras and tithis. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 description is concise with two sentences plus an example, front-loading the purpose and usage. The group and cost lines are extra metadata but do not detract. The structure is efficient and clear.

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?

Given the generic nature and the presence of many specific muhurat siblings, the description sufficiently covers scope, criteria, and return type. No output schema exists, but the description says 'returns top-N days against universal Panchang criteria', which is adequate. The example provides partial parameter context, though full completeness is hindered by missing parameter explanations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description only provides an example request body showing five of the seven parameters but does not explain their purpose or constraints (e.g., ayanamsaId, topN behavior). This compensation is minimal and insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 clearly states it is a 'generic favourable-window finder' for when no specific activity applies, such as Sankalpa, prayer, or fallback. It mentions using universal Pushya/Hasta nakshatras and standard shubha tithis, which distinguishes it from other specific muhurat tools like vedic_muhurat_marriage.

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 description explicitly says 'when no specific activity applies (Sankalpa, prayer, fallback)', providing clear guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the specific activity tools. It implies not to use it for specific activities, which are handled by sibling tools.

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