divine_get_matching_basic_astro

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by naming returned fields and the side-by-side dual-person output, but it does not describe response shape, language behavior, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid score 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete output examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for tool selection. It clearly conveys the dual-person basic astrology use case, though it could be stronger with an explicit note about when this tool is preferred over related matchmaking siblings.

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 description provides no parameter guidance, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%. Although the nested MatchmakingInput schema contains detailed field descriptions, the tool description itself does not compensate for the low coverage or note that full birth details for both persons are required.

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 and resource: 'Get basic astrological details for both persons in matchmaking.' It explicitly enumerates returned fields and highlights the P1/P2 side-by-side comparison, which distinguishes it from single-person tools like divine_get_basic_astro_details.

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 matchmaking context and dual-person comparison imply when to use this tool, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives such as divine_get_basic_astro_details, divine_get_ashtakoot_milan, or divine_get_matching_manglik. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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