divine_get_dashakoot_milan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it evaluates 10 categories with a max score of 36, which gives some insight into output content but not additional behavioral context like rate limits or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three short, focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, adds regional context, and then gives a comparative statement. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is a straightforward matching API with a clear purpose. The description explains what it does and how it differs from a sibling, and the schema and annotations cover the remaining operational details. The only minor gap is not explaining what the 10 categories are, but that is not necessary 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?

The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema provides thorough descriptions for every parameter (e.g., birth day, latitude, etc.). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to duplicate this information.

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 states a specific verb ('Perform'), a clear resource (Dashakoot Milan), and explains it's a 10-point compatibility matching for two people. It also differentiates from the sibling tool by mentioning it's more comprehensive than Ashtakoot Milan, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage by highlighting that it's more comprehensive than Ashtakoot Milan, which suggests choosing this for a more detailed 10-category match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other matching tools like Manglik or basic compatibility checks.

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