Porutham

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by specifying what the output contains: pass count out of ten, Rajju/Vedha condition booleans, and per-porutham evidence objects. It also links to a full output and error contract. This goes 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 compact and well structured with clear labeled sections: WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH. The key scoping sentence is front-loaded, and every section earns its place. The documentation URL is practical and not filler.

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?

Given a high-complexity tool with two nested BirthData objects, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description covers purpose, workflow, input contract, sibling differentiation, and links to the full output/error contract. The output schema is present, so return values need not be fully explained in the description. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the input contract reference 'Two BirthData objects per global contract' and points to the documented error contract. Baseline 3 applies for high coverage, and the description earns a 4 by explicitly framing the two-person requirement above what the schema literally states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Runs the Tamil ten-porutham checklist for two charts, counts passes out of ten, surfaces Rajju/Vedha classical condition booleans, and returns per-porutham evidence objects.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the alternative twelve-porutham tool and the dashakoot tool in the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section.

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 says BEFORE: RECOMMENDED asterwise_get_natal_chart per native, and AFTER: asterwise_get_thirumana_porutham if an extended twelve-koota read is needed. It also names alternatives and the conditions that select them: twelve poruthams including Nadi and Varna versus ten, and dashakoot float scoring versus Tamil pass grid. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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