Compatibility: Parashara full report

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — 50 credits at Tier 3 and the POST endpoint — which matters for costly calls, but says nothing about response shape, latency, or failure modes.

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 substantive sentence is front-loaded and packs a lot of information into one line with zero filler. The trailing bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate but each carries operational value (endpoint, required fields, cost).

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 a rich output schema, full annotations, and heavily described nested parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or input formats. The only meaningful omission is that it never tells the agent when to prefer this over the individual Kuta tools it bundles.

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 chart objects are documented in exceptional depth (rejected short forms, timezone semantics, houseSystem letter casing). The description only restates 'Required: chart1, chart2', adding nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific deliverable and enumerates its components (Ashtakoot total, threshold, Manglik for both partners, per-Kuta sub-scores, recommendation). The phrase 'one call' implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot and astroway_vedic_compatibility_manglik_check, though it never names them.

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?

'in one call' hints that this is the aggregate alternative to the granular compatibility tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no sibling is named. The agent must infer the routing decision from the component list.

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