Muhurat — Long journey (multi-day Yatra)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it is a scanner (not mutating), excludes Fridays, and filters by preferred nakshatras. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 at two sentences plus a group/cost line and an example request. It front-loads the core purpose and key constraints. The example is helpful but adds slight length. No fluff, though parameter explanations would improve it.

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?

With 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected results, pagination, or error handling. It mentions 'auspicious-window scanner' but not what the output contains (e.g., dates, ratings, nakshatra names). The example shows a request but not a response. The low schema coverage and lack of output schema worsen completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter purpose, format, or constraints. The included example request body gives implicit hints for search_window_start/end, latitude, longitude, and timezoneOffset, but fails to describe ayanamsaId, topN, or required vs optional nature. This is a significant gap for tool invocation.

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 an 'auspicious-window scanner for multi-day journeys' and identifies specific use cases (pilgrimages, relocation travel). It differentiates from short travel by noting stricter criteria and excluded Fridays, and the sibling tool list includes vedic_muhurat_travel, confirming a distinct purpose.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (multi-day journeys) and hints at alternatives (stricter than short travel, implying vedic_muhurat_travel for short trips). It mentions excluded day (Friday) and preferred nakshatras, aiding selection. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or list alternative tool names.

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