Compatibility: bulk matching (1 against up to 100)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context and it does: it declares synchronous execution and discloses the exact billing model (50 credits for the first candidate, 20 for each further one, surfaced via X-Credits-Used). That is real operational information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It stops short of stating rate limits or failure behavior for oversized/invalid candidate arrays.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, and it avoids padding. The trailing metadata block (Group, Endpoint, Required, Cost) partially repeats the billing figure already given in the prose, which is minor redundancy but also serves as a quick-reference summary.

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 7-parameter, nested-payload bulk endpoint the description covers scope, required inputs, output contents, 1–100 bounds implicitly, execution mode and cost, and an output schema exists to carry return-value structure. Little an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 86%, so the schema itself does most of the work and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces `profileRole` and explains that `sortBy` selects the ranking key, but says nothing about `school`, `mangalSchool` or `minAshtakoot`, which are the parameters where an agent would most benefit from extra narrative.

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 definition states a specific verb and resource with scope: one profile (groom or bride) matched against up to 100 candidates, ranked by Ashtakoot points or Porutham via `sortBy`. It also enumerates what each result carries (top kootas, Porutham count, Mangal verdict, uncancelled doshas), which clearly separates this bulk tool from the single-pair siblings such as 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 'one against up to 100' framing makes the use case unambiguous, and the `sortBy` note implies when to switch to Porutham ranking. However, the definition never explicitly names the single-pair alternatives or says when to use them instead, so the alternative routing is inferred from the bulk scope rather than spelled out.

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