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 genuine context beyond that: it resolves both birth places itself, calculates both charts, returns 'auditable' breakdowns, and explicitly disclaims that results are not a relationship verdict.

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 dense but purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope caveat. No filler, though the second clause packs several concepts that could be split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is disambiguation from the marriage-compatibility sibling and any hint about the required inputs, which matters for a nested two-person tool.

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 reported at 0% and the description says nothing about the bride/groom objects, their required date/time, the place-vs-coordinates either/or, or the language parameter. With nested objects and low coverage, the description must compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb (calculates/resolves) and a well-defined resource set: 36-point Ashtakoota, ten-Porutham, and Mangal/Kuja Dosha evidence. The procedure is concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling calculate_relationship_compatibility, leaving the agent to guess which marriage-compatibility tool to pick.

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?

'Traditional research preview; never a relationship verdict' frames intent and sets an interpretive boundary, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no when-to-use condition versus the overlapping calculate_relationship_compatibility or calculate_doshas siblings, so routing is only implied.

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