Dashakoot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the computed output — grid, score, percentage, dosha flags, diagnostics — and points to a full output/error contract URL, extending context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core behavior, then organized into compact labeled sections for workflow, input contract, sibling differentiation, and documentation. Every section serves a distinct purpose and none is redundant with the schema.

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 tool has nested two-person input and a rich astrology computation, but the description covers workflow, input contract, sibling disambiguation, and full output/error documentation. Combined with complete schema descriptions and the output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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%, and the schema already documents person1, person2, response_format, including nested fields, defaults, and enums. The description's mention of 'Two BirthData objects per global contract' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Computes'), a precise resource ('ten-koota Dashakoot grid'), and the derived outputs ('ten-point score with percentage', 'boolean dosha flags', 'supplementary diagnostics'). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools asterwise_get_compatibility and asterwise_get_porutham, so an agent can distinguish this tool from similar-sounding alternatives.

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 WORKFLOW section states a recommended prerequisite (asterwise_get_natal_chart for each native) and an optional follow-up (asterwise_get_papasamyam). The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names the two closest sibling tools and explains why they are not the same, which is exactly the when/not-when guidance needed.

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