Compatibility: Bhrigu-match (7H placement)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the computation performed, the categorical output scale, and the 50-credit Tier 3 cost — the last being practical context no structured field provides. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether both charts must share an ayanamsa.

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?

Two dense sentences put the technique and the output shape first, and the bracketed metadata block efficiently conveys group, endpoint, required inputs, and cost without prose bloat. Minor redundancy in restating required parameters already visible in 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the annotations plus the rich nested chart schema cover input and safety semantics. Together they give an agent everything needed to call this correctly: what it computes, what it is not, its cost tier, and its two required charts.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested birth-data objects are documented exhaustively (timezone vs. timezoneOffset, houseSystem letters, rejected aliases), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that chart1 and chart2 are required without adding semantics of its own, which is the baseline case.

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?

Names a specific technique and resource: a Bhrigu Sanhita-style 7th-house planetary placement summary for both partners, including what it computes (benefic/malefic counts in each 7H from Lagna) and what it emits (beneficial|challenging|neutral labels). The explicit 'NOT a numerical match score' immediately separates it from the scoring-oriented siblings such as astroway_relational_match_score and astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot.

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 negative disambiguation ('NOT a numerical match score') implies when to pick this instead of a scoring tool, and 'Required: chart1, chart2' signals it is a two-chart operation. But no positive when-to-use statement and no named alternative (ashtakoot, dashakoota, full, manglik_check) is pointed at, so the routing is only half-specified.

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