divine_get_manglik_dosha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns Manglik status, percentage, and cancellation factors, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral nuances like edge cases or limitations.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second adds the use context and return info. No fluff, and the primary action is front-loaded. Slightly redundant that 'Manglik' and 'Mangal/Kuja' are repeated, but it's efficient.

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 has a complex input schema (13 fields) but all are well-documented in the schema itself. The description covers the purpose and return type, and the output schema exists to handle return details. For a read-only tool with these structured supports, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 provides no parameter-level detail; however, the input schema includes thorough descriptions for all fields (e.g., day, month, lat, lon). Since schema coverage is high in the schema itself, the description adds no extra value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Check for Manglik Dosha') on a clear resource (birth chart) and includes the important context of marriage compatibility. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like divine_get_matching_manglik, but the single-chart focus is implicit.

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 mentions 'Important for marriage compatibility', which implies a use case, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the matching tool or other dosha checks. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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