Compatibility: Mangal-match (Manglik between partners)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine domain behavior — the mutual-cancellation logic and the three possible verdict outcomes — plus a cost of 50 credits (Tier 3), which the annotations do not carry. It does not describe the response payload, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentences lead with the core comparison and rule, then a compact bracketed metadata block. The endpoint and cost lines are dense but useful; nothing is padded, though the block slightly dilutes the front-loaded prose.

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 full output schema, complete annotations, and thoroughly described nested parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: the rule applied, the verdict enum, and the credit cost. Only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.

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 both chart objects have rich nested documentation (timezone handling, houseSystem letters, rejected short-form fields). The description only repeats that chart1 and chart2 are required, adding no new meaning, 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it compares Manglik status of both partners and explicitly names the BPHS A.39 cancellation rule, plus the verdict values. That scope ('both partners') distinguishes it from the single-chart astroway_vedic_doshas_parashara_mangal and kp_manglik siblings, though no sibling is named directly.

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 use this versus astroway_vedic_compatibility_manglik_check (which presumably handles one chart) or astroway_vedic_compatibility_full/ashtakoot. The only usage-relevant data is the bracketed 'Required: chart1, chart2' and cost line, which the schema already conveys.

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