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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real substance beyond them: which classical sources are consulted per dosha, the samya case when both partners carry the dosha, and the promise that every firing rule is returned with its provenance. It does not mention the 50-credit Tier 3 cost or any latency, but that is a minor omission given the annotation coverage.

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 lead sentence front-loads the three doshas and the cancellation question, and the following sentences are dense but purposeful for a specialist audience. The list of classical texts is long but is the actual substance of a rule-provenance tool, so it earns its space; only the source enumeration borders on padding.

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 domain-heavy Vedic tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the calculation logic, school selection and return semantics well. What it leaves out is partner ordering and any routing against the many adjacent compatibility tools, which keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The `mangalSchool` explanation largely restates the schema's own enumeration of houses and reference points, and the description never clarifies which of chart1/chart2 is the bride or groom, a distinction that only lives in the schema's allOf notes and matters a great deal for a compatibility calculation.

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 names three specific doshas (Mangal/Kuja, Nadi, Bhakoot) and states that cancellation status is returned for each, which is concrete and distinguishable from a raw dosha lookup. It stops short of naming a sibling such as astroway_vedic_compatibility_manglik_check or compatibility_ashtakoot, so the agent must infer the split from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With roughly fifteen compatibility siblings (mangal_match, manglik_check, ashtakoot, dashakoota, porutham, full, couple_report), the description never says to pick this one when the question is specifically about cancellation rather than detection, so routing is left entirely to the tool name.

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