Porutham: South Indian 10 factors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful per-factor output semantics (verdict tiers, 1/0.5/0 scoring, rule/source/basis provenance) and a cost tier, but does not mention failure modes or how the two charts must relate beyond role assignment.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource identity and factor list come first, then the directional convention, then output shape, then the school note. The ten-factor enumeration is long but carries real disambiguating information, and no sentence is filler.

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 no further explanation, and the annotations cover safety; the description supplies role assignment, counting direction, scoring semantics and the school modifier, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The one gap is sibling selection guidance, which is left entirely unaddressed.

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 only 33%, yet the description compensates where it matters most: it fixes the asymmetric roles (chart1 = groom, chart2 = bride) and the counting direction (bride's star to groom's), which the schema does not state. It also clarifies that the kerala school adds Papasamyam, complementing the enum description that says only which factors differ.

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 specific named resource and verb-equivalent ('South Indian ten-factor Porutham'), enumerates all ten factors, and identifies it as Dasa Porutham, which implicitly separates it from the eight-factor ashtakoot and the single-factor sibling tools that compute a subset. An agent can tell what this returns 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over the individual factor tools (mahendra, rajju, stree_deergha, vedha), ashtakoot, dashakoota, or the 'full' compatibility tool. The only orienting statement is domain trivia ('Rajju and Vedhai are essential'), which does not route the agent between alternatives.

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