Porutham: Mahendram

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context annotations cannot convey: the endpoint, the required inputs, and a cost of 50 credits (Tier 3), which is decision-relevant for an agent choosing among many compatibility tools.

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 core rule is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by a bracketed metadata block that is scannable rather than prose. Little waste; the only minor cost is that the bracket block repeats the required-field information already 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-value explanation is not required, and the description supplies the domain rule, cost, and endpoint. What remains thin is the school parameter's effect (tamil vs kerala differences on Dinam, Stree Deergham, Rasi), which lives only in the schema.

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 low (33%), but the schema itself carries very rich nested descriptions for chart1/chart2 and the school enum. The description reinforces the directional rule (bride's star to groom's) but does not itself say which of chart1/chart2 is the bride — the agent must read the schema for that. It adds the counting rule but not new per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3.

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 single factor ("Mahendra porutham alone") and states the actual rule it evaluates: counting from the bride's star to the groom's with agreement on 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25. The word "alone" signals this is the single-factor variant rather than the combined porutham tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by "alone" — an agent can infer this is for when just the Mahendra factor is wanted, versus the full porutham tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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