Team Compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, which are real invocation costs not in the annotations, but says nothing about what the score output contains or how inputs are validated.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata; every line (group, endpoint, required, cost) carries actionable information. The bracket-tag format is terse but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It falls short on selection context — an agent facing hundreds of astrology siblings gets no help deciding why to use this one.

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 birth-data objects are exhaustively documented in-schema. The description only restates the required parameter names, adding no semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: it computes a founder-partner compatibility score, and the [Group: Business Astrology] tag situates it in business rather than romantic synastry. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as astroway_business_ideal_partner_sign or astroway_relational_match_score.

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 lists required inputs and cost but gives no guidance on when to pick this over the many other compatibility tools (vedic_compatibility_*, relational_synastry, chinese_zodiac_compatibility). No exclusions or selection criteria are offered.

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