Porutham: Rajju

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only computation, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the failure condition (identical rajju) and that it carries the consequence the manuals name. The metadata block contributes endpoint, required fields, and a 50-credit Tier 3 cost, which is genuinely useful for planning. It does not describe output shape, 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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the substance, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block for group, endpoint, required fields, and cost. No wasted prose. The cost/endpoint lines are structured rather than narrative, which helps scanning.

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 an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values or safety, and it covers purpose and pricing adequately. The gaps are the directionality of chart1/chart2 and the school parameter, which are the two things most likely to cause a wrong or misframed call.

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 low at 33%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never says chart1 is the bride (counted from) and chart2 the groom (counted to) — a directional rule that is decisive for porutham correctness — and it never mentions the `school` parameter (tamil vs kerala), which the schema says changes which factors are essential. Both omissions are material to calling the tool correctly.

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 factor (rajju porutham), the five rajju divisions, and the outcome rule (same rajju fails), so an agent knows exactly what is computed from the two birth stars. It also distinguishes itself from the aggregate sibling by saying it is 'Rajju porutham alone' and mirrors the factor inside /porutham. It stops short of a crisp verb phrase like 'computes' but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 'alone' plus 'same function as the factor inside /porutham' implies the routing rule: call this for the single factor, call the aggregate for a full match. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are stated, and the 50-credit cost relative to the cheaper aggregate is not framed as a trade-off an agent should weigh.

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