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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioural context: it resolves both birth places, computes both charts, and returns 'auditable' breakdowns, while explicitly disclaiming any relationship verdict. It does not, however, note any cost, latency, or precision caveats despite the birthTimeAccuracyMinutes parameter.

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 tightly-packed sentences with the computation and the scope disclaimer front-loaded, no filler, and every clause carrying information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. The description covers computation scope and the non-verdict framing well, but leaves the dual place/coordinate input modes unresolved for a fairly complex nested schema.

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 low, and the awkward anyOf input modes (place vs latitude/longitude/timezone) plus birthTimeAccuracyMinutes are not clarified. The phrase 'Resolves both birth places' adds some meaning about how the 'place' field is treated as a lookup query, but the description largely leaves the parameter contract to the schema.

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 verb (calculates/resolves) and resource (compatibility), and names the exact systems computed: North Indian 36-point Ashtakoota, South Indian ten-Porutham, and Mangal/Kuja Dosha evidence. This distinguishes it clearly from generic siblings like calculate_doshas or get_marriage_readiness.

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 scope caveat 'Traditional research preview; never a relationship verdict' implies research use, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings such as get_marriage_readiness, find_marriage_windows, or analyze_marriage_structure. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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