vedika_muhurta

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the per-call cost range ($0.012-0.020), the three defaults (today's date, Delhi coordinates, IST timezone), and the composition of the aggregate 'combined' response. It stops short of describing the response shape or noting any latency/rate-limit 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 high-level purpose is front-loaded and the type glossary follows in the order an agent needs it. It is dense but virtually every clause carries information; the grouping of the three inauspicious periods into one sentence is efficient rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the 5-parameter signature is non-trivial, so the description should also convey what a response looks like (e.g. whether periods come back as labeled time ranges per type). It covers inputs thoroughly but leaves the entire return contract to guesswork, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns that by actually defining the ten enum values the schema defers to ('See tool description for what each returns'). The geographic parameters are not discussed beyond the fact that they default to Delhi, but the schema already documents their ranges and defaults.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calculate auspicious and inauspicious time periods for today or a specific date') and the following sentences define each muhurta type, so an agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not differentiate itself from the closest siblings (vedika_panchang, vedika_calendar), which likely surface overlapping time-period data, leaving that routing inference to the agent.

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 supplies the actual selection logic for the required 'type' parameter — it enumerates what choghadiya, hora, rahu-kaal, gulika-kaal, yamaghanta, abhijit and brahma each mean, and explicitly states what 'combined' and 'auspicious' return, which is genuine when-to-choose guidance. It also states location defaults. It gives no exclusions, however — nothing says when to prefer vedika_panchang or vedika_calendar instead.

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