Thirumana Porutham

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by mentioning Rajju veto severity tracking and the expanded breakdown map with tradition metadata, though exact result keys and error cases are only pointed to via the 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 well organized with WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, and contract sections. It is slightly verbose and repeats some schema content, but every section serves a clear 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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it provides workflow, disambiguation from relevant siblings, input requirements, output format, and a link to the full error contract.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the input contract and 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 description states a clear verb ('Evaluates'), names the exact resource (twelve Tamil Thirumana poruthams for two charts), and immediately distinguishes it from the ten-porutham and North Indian compatibility tools in the DO NOT CONFUSE 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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance (run asterwise_get_porutham first as a quick pass), states the input contract (two BirthData objects), and names the alternatives to avoid. It also indicates output format and points to the full output/error contract.

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