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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it discloses what the computation returns (koota-wise scores and dosha checks) and the free-tier boundary versus a paid report elsewhere, which is useful scoping context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the technique and scoring scheme, followed by the access/tier note. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it computes) comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly sketches the return (koota-wise scores plus dosha checks) and notes the free/paid split. Combined with a fully documented nested input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a hint at input granularity or result format would make it airtight.

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 description coverage is 100% with fully documented nested bride/groom objects (date, time, lat/long, timezone defaults), so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond naming the two parties, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific technique and scope: 'Ashtakoot Guna Milan (36 points)' for a bride and groom, with koota-wise scores and dosha checks. That is a precise verb+resource far beyond restating the title. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dosha_check or vivah_muhurat, so it stops short of a 5.

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 marriage-matching context is implied by 'bride and groom' and the sibling set, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The only routing statement ('detailed compatibility report with remedies is on Trikaal Vaani') points to an external product, not to an alternative tool in this server, so it does not serve as sibling-selection guidance.

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