Ashtakoota Compatibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating it 'scores' and 'returns' data, implying no mutation. It also notes 'All scoring is computed upstream from those payloads,' clarifying the input handling. No contradiction with annotations, and the description adds modest behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for workflow and exclusions, and the main purpose is stated in one sentence. It includes a link to the full contract and helpful context without excessive verbosity. The extra sections add value and are not redundant, so it earns a 4.

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 provides sufficient context for a complex astrological tool: it mentions the expected output (koota breakdown, dosha flags, etc.), gives workflow recommendations, names sibling tools to avoid confusion, and links to the full output/error contract. While the output schema is not inline, the link covers it, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter (person1, person2, response_format) fully described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific info, only mentioning 'Two BirthData objects follow the global contract' and 'unknown midnight time accepted without flag,' which slightly supplements the schema. Since the schema already covers semantics thoroughly, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: scoring North Indian Ashtakoota (36-point Guna Milan) for two charts and returning a breakdown, dosha flags, classical vetoes, mangal cross-check, and narrative guidance. It distinguishes from similar tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section naming dashakoot and porutham, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool: before interpreting scores, a natal chart is recommended; after, papasamyam is an optional overlay. It also explicitly names alternatives (dashakoot, porutham) and explains why they are different, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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