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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that this is a composite returning multiple sub-analyses, which is useful, but says nothing about cost/latency, whether it internally invokes find_muhurta, or what happens when optional blocks are omitted.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and then enumerates outputs in a scannable list. Dense but no filler; only the trailing 'in one call' is slightly redundant with the title.

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?

This is a complex composite tool with nested inputs and low schema coverage, yet the description covers only return contents and nothing about the required birth data for both people or how startDate/muhurta interact. With an output schema present, most of what the description does say duplicates structured data, leaving the input side of the contract undocumented.

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 only 17% and six parameters are present, including two nested person objects, so the description carries the burden of compensating and does not. It never explains bride/groom birth date-time-place requirements, the role of startDate, the years window, the language enum, or the optional muhurta override beyond 'for each person'.

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 (Returns) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: North Indian Ashtakoota, South Indian ten-Porutham, Kuja evidence, compact summaries, and marriage-planning windows. The phrase 'in one call' signals it is the aggregator, which distinguishes it from the narrower siblings. It never names calculate_compatibility or find_marriage_windows directly, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'in one call' suggests this is the tool to pick when the agent wants the full marriage-readiness bundle rather than several narrow calls. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named for partial needs.

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