Muhurat — Vehicle purchase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds context about being a 'scanner' (read-only) and mentions cost and group. However, beyond stating it returns a scoring shape, there is no additional behavioral detail (e.g., response format, pagination). The description adds modest value but does not fully exploit the transparency gap.

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 no redundant sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, lists key nakshatras, references scoring shape, and includes group/cost metadata and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, Vedic domain), the description covers the essential purpose, preferences, and reference to marriage tool's scoring shape. However, it omits explanations for parameters like ayanamsaId and topN, and does not describe the output format. While the example helps, the description could be more complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but falls short. It provides an example request body showing parameters like search_window_start and latitude but does not explain their meaning, units, or constraints. Preferred nakshatras are output criteria, not input parameters. The description adds no semantic value for parameters like ayanamsaId or topN, which remain undefined.

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 buying a new vehicle,' which is precise and specific. It lists preferred nakshatras and avoids, distinguishing it from other muhurat tools like vedic_muhurat_marriage. There are no sibling tools for vehicle purchase, so purpose is 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 provides guidance on preferred nakshatras and to avoid Sun/Sat, which informs when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like vedic_muhurat_general_auspicious or vedic_muhurat_marriage. The reference to 'same scoring shape as /vedic/muhurat/marriage' hints at similarity but lacks clear usage boundaries.

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