divine_get_ashtakoot_milan

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the computation evaluates the 8 named Gunas and produces a score out of a maximum of 36. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, then uses a compact bullet-like list for the 8 Gunas. Every sentence adds relevant information with no 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?

The description gives the method, regional context, and scoring basis, and the output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, for a tool with this much input complexity, it should at least state that complete birth details for both individuals are required; the absence of this leaves the agent reliant entirely on the 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining that full birth details for both people are required. It only says 'for two people' and does not mention the need for names, birth date/time, place, coordinates, gender, or timezone for each person, which is a major gap for a 22-field input.

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 clearly states the action ('Perform Ashtakoot Milan') and the resource ('8-point compatibility matching for two people'), and it lists the exact Gunas evaluated with a maximum score of 36. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like divine_get_dashakoot_milan, though the 'North India' context indirectly helps differentiate it.

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?

It provides a clear contextual signal by calling this 'the most popular matching method in North India', which guides an agent on regional use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as divine_get_dashakoot_milan.

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