Papasamyam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it compares two charts, uses three reference points, and produces a threshold-based compatibility label, plus it points to a full output/error contract URL.

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 core purpose, then organized into short labeled sections for workflow, input contract, disambiguation, and documentation. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant prose.

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?

For a complex Vedic compatibility tool, the description covers the core calculation, recommended sequencing, exclusions from two similar tools, the two-person input contract, and a link to the full output and error contract. The rich input schema and output schema reduce the need for inline return value documentation.

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 nested BirthData fields are already fully documented with formats, defaults, and examples. The description only restates 'Two BirthData objects per global contract,' which does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence states a specific computation—'Measures malefic stress from Lagna, Moon, and Venus references for each partner, compares totals, and labels compatibility level against a threshold'—with a clear verb, resource, and outcome. It also names the sibling tools it must not be confused with, making differentiation immediate.

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 explicitly recommends asterwise_get_compatibility as a BEFORE step, and the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section names asterwise_get_doshas and asterwise_get_compatibility with precise scoping reasons. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to the closest siblings.

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