Muhurat — Name change

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral context such as using Namkaran-derived rules, widened tithi set, and preferred nakshatras. The cost and group details are also helpful. There is no contradiction 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 relatively concise at three sentences plus an example, but it lacks structured formatting. The example is useful but could be integrated more cleanly. There is some redundancy in mentioning preferred nakshatras twice.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how auspicious windows are determined, or the significance of preferred nakshatras. The example helps but falls short of providing full context.

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 provides an example request body but does not explain individual parameters like ayanamsaId or topN. While the example gives some context, it is insufficient for the agent to understand all parameter semantics, especially for optional fields.

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 the tool as an 'auspicious-window scanner for legal or sacramental name change', specifying the verb (scanner) and resource (auspicious windows). It also mentions using Namkaran-derived rules with a widened tithi set, effectively distinguishing it from sibling muhurat tools like marriage or business start.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions preferred nakshatras but lacks context on when this tool is appropriate. There is no differentiation from the sibling 'vedic_muhurat_naming_ceremony', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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