Muhurat — Marriage (Vivah)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the scoring methodology (Tithi, Vara, Nakshatra, Yoga, Karana), preferred nakshatras, avoided weekdays, and return format (top-N sorted by score). No contradictions with 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary detail (sources, preferred nakshatras, avoided days, output format) and an example. The truncation at 'Abh…' is minor. Overall efficient with no extraneous text.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the scoring, output format, and provides an example. However, it lacks explanation of the ayanamsaId parameter, what 'Abh…' abbreviates, and whether output includes timings. For a moderately complex tool, more detail would improve 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by mentioning 'date range' and providing an example request that clarifies search_window_start, search_window_end, latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset, and topN. However, it does not explain ayanamsaId or the meaning of 'topN' versus other parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies it as an 'Auspicious-window scanner for marriage (Vivah Muhurat)' and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the subject (marriage) and textual sources (Muhurta Chintamani, B.V.Raman). The verb 'scanner' and resource 'marriage muhurat' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for finding marriage dates over a date range, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other muhurat tools (e.g., business, education). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent based solely on the tool name.

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