find_muhurta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it meets it comprehensively. It discloses inauspicious window subtraction, scoring with Abhijit/Amrita overlap, hard-avoid Bhadra Mukha, skipped periods like Pitru Paksha, Panchaka checks at two levels, Disha Shoola filtering, and night-specific scoring. It even documents a legacy activity name resolution, a genuinely non-obvious behavior.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then organizes behavior, version notes, optional birth-data params, and an Args list. It is dense and long, but almost every sentence contributes unique operational detail. The 1.9.0 changelog-style paragraph is the least essential for invocation, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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?

For a complex 14-parameter astrological tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation constraints, filtering behavior, scoring nuances, and optional parameters in depth. Remaining gaps include the source/enumeration of 'published activity keys' and timezone parameter semantics, but the description still gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage, the description compensates strongly: it specifies start_date format, days range, activity key concept, city versus latitude/longitude, system enums, chandra_mode enums, ayanamsa enums, travel_direction options, and include_night effect. It also explains janma_nakshatras count and purpose, janma_rasis alignment with null allowance, and janma_lagnas for strict Lagna Shuddhi. Only timezone is left without semantic explanation, but the overall coverage is exceptional.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Find ranked auspicious time slots over the coming days.' This clearly differentiates it from single-day tools like get_muhurta and from general panchangam lookups. The description then details the exact filtering and scoring mechanism, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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 clearly implies use for multi-day auspicious-slot search, but it never names sibling tools or states when to prefer get_muhurta, get_panchangam, or get_special_days instead. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided, though the 'over the coming days' phrase gives useful context.

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