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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavior: the score is returned as a range (min…max) rather than a single number, the reason (ambiguous Moon sign without birth time), the count of uncalculated points, and a clear prohibition on deriving a percentage. It also describes the response structure by kutas. This is exemplary for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 dense but well-organized, with emojis and clear sections for range behavior and percentage prohibition. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contains essential information. Slightly long, but no wasteful filler.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the critical aspects: output structure, range behavior, and the prohibition on deriving percentages. It does not address error handling or explicit prerequisites for each parameter, but the required fields are indicated in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to time parameters by explaining that missing birth time causes a range output. However, it does not explain date formats, the use of place/geonameid, or the lang parameter, leaving several parameters to be inferred from their names. Partial compensation only.

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 starts with 'Сравнение двух карт по восьми кутам (kundli matching, аштакута)', which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes the tool from single-chart tools like natal_chart and transit tools by specifying the eight-kuta matching domain.

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 implies use for kundli matching and tells the agent how to answer 'why this many' with the breakdown, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives like compare_methods or natal_chart, nor provides exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than direct.

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