Compatibility: Navamsa (D9)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the output contains no score by definition, and the call costs 50 credits at Tier 3, which affects whether an agent should invoke it freely.

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 content is two front-loaded sentences with no padding, followed by a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required fields, cost) that is all operational and earns its place. Minor redundancy in restating the required parameters already present in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully flags the absence of a score. Still missing is the partner-ordering convention and any note on how the ayanamsa default (Lahiri) affects the vargottama and lord results, which matters for a two-chart computation.

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 only restates '[Required: chart1, chart2]', which repeats the schema's required list. It does not clarify which chart is the groom and which the bride, or the effect of ayanamsa/house-system choices — the groom/bride ordering only appears inside the nested schema descriptions, which the coverage metric reports as unaccounted at the top level.

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 specific resource and contents — each partner's D9 Lagna, Moon, Venus and 7th with lords and vargottama flags, plus the relation of the two Moons' navamsa lords — so the agent knows exactly which chart division is computed. It does not name a sibling like astroway_vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot or dashakoota to contrast against, and the 'no score' note only implicitly separates it from the scored compatibility tools.

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 phrase 'which Muhurta Ganapati uses to cancel Nadi dosha' implies the use case and hints the tool is for Nadi-dosha-related D9 analysis rather than general matching. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for the many sibling compatibility tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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