Guna Milan Compatibility

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it returns computed results without side effects. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations (e.g., expects specific kundali JSONs, returns dosha findings). No contradictions.

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 sentences: first states the primary function and expected inputs, second lists the outputs. Every word is informative, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the key outputs (koota-wise breakdown, total, dosha findings). Combined with good annotations and schema coverage, the description fully conveys what the tool does and returns.

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 already describes both parameters (kundali_a and kundali_b) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explicitly labeling the roles (bride/groom) and specifying the source (calculate_kundali), which clarifies intended usage 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 clearly states that the tool calculates Guna Milan (Ashtakoot) marriage compatibility between two kundali JSONs, specifying the roles (bride and groom) and the output (koota-wise breakdown, total out of 36, and dosha findings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_kundali, calculate_dasha, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 after calculate_kundali by referencing 'kundali JSON from calculate_kundali'. It provides clear context for when to use (marriage compatibility), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid or name alternatives, though it is self-evident among siblings.

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