Compatibility: unified couple report

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the endpoint, the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, and the claim that each section is byte-identical to its own route with a summary that "only counts what they say." That equivalence guarantee and cost disclosure are what an agent needs to decide whether aggregation is safe and affordable.

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 with "One call," then a single dense sentence enumerating the components, followed by compact metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) that are each individually useful. The sentence is long but every clause carries routing or scope information.

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 six-parameter, high-credit aggregate tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, equivalence to component routes, cost, endpoint and required inputs. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the deep parameter documentation lives in the schema.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema for the 6 parameters; school, mangalSchool, years and fromDate are only explained in the schema. With 67% schema description coverage and a very detailed nested chart schema, the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 names the exact six analyses bundled (Ashtakoot, Dashakoota, Porutham, dosha cancellation, Navamsa, Dasha) and states that each equals its own standalone route plus an added summary. That lets an agent distinguish this aggregate tool from the individual sibling routes without opening the schema.

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?

"One call" plus the explicit cost line (50 credits, Tier 3) gives an agent the trade-off against calling several component tools, and the [Required: chart1, chart2] line sets the precondition for invocation. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. that a caller wanting only Ashtakoot should use the narrower sibling, so it is clear context rather than full routing rules.

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