Guna Milan Compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing what is returned (koota-wise breakdown, total out of 36, Nadi/Bhakoot/Manglik dosha findings), though it says nothing about failure modes for malformed kundali input.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the scoring system and the operation, then the inputs, then the return contents. No filler, no 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return payload, which is the right call. Inputs are non-trivial nested kundali objects re-used from a sibling tool, and that dependency is stated. Only the handling of invalid or partial kundali input is left unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including their provenance from calculate_kundali. The description's bride/groom mapping merely restates the schema's role labels, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (Guna Milan/Ashtakoot compatibility), names the governing 36-point scoring system, and disambiguates from sibling calculate_kundali by declaring that tool's output as its input. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 makes the usage context explicit by requiring kundali JSONs produced by calculate_kundali and pinning the bride/groom roles, so the agent knows the prerequisite step. It does not name a competing alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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