divine_get_matching_vimshottari_dasha

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the output (periods for both P1 and P2) and its purpose, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and output scope.

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 is adequate for a read-only, output-schema-backed tool: it states the key purpose and the dual-person scope. However, it does not clarify what 'dasha periods' include (e.g., mahadasha/antardasha), nor does it explicitly warn against using this for single-person analysis. Given the vast sibling list, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 contains no parameter information. The schema does document the nested fields (e.g., p1_day, p2_day) with individual descriptions, but the given context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage for the tool's direct parameter. Since the description does not compensate for this perceived gap, it offers minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Vimshottari Dasha'), and a clear context ('for both persons in matchmaking'). This distinguishes it from single-person dasha tools and from other matching tools (e.g., matching_manglik) that operate on different astrological elements.

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 in the matchmaking context ('assess timing compatibility') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like divine_get_vimshottari_dasha (single-person) or other matching tools. No exclusions or alternative-sibling comparisons are provided.

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