Compatibility: dosha cancellation (Mangal, Nadi, Bhakoot)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial algorithmic transparency: the default south school, named exception sources, samya when both partners have the dosha, and that every fired rule is returned with its source.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence is domain-relevant. The source lists are dense and less scannable than a short structured breakdown, but the length is reasonable for a complex rule-based tool.

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?

The description is rich on calculation rules and output provenance, and the output schema plus annotations cover return shape and safety. It still lacks operational guidance for choosing among many sibling compatibility tools and does not state the groom/bride roles for chart1 and chart2.

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 33%, and the description only explains mangalSchool's south default while repeating schema content. It gives no explanation of chart1 versus chart2 roles or the required birth-data fields, so it does not compensate for the low top-level parameter coverage.

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 opening sentence names the exact doshas (Mangal/Kuja, Nadi, Bhakoot) and the cancellation question, so the resource is precise. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling compatibility tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over siblings such as manglik_check, mangal_match, or ashtakoot, nor any exclusions. The specific purpose implies compatibility use, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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