Porutham: Stree Deergham

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint, the 50-credit Tier 3 cost, and the group tag — cost in particular is a real selection factor. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or reproducible across ayanamsa/school choices.

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 substantive sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost). Front-loaded and waste-free, though the bracketed lines are boilerplate rather than explanatory.

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 annotations cover safety. What is missing for a two-chart asymmetric calculation is the mapping of chart1/chart2 to bride/groom and any warning that the school enum changes the result, both of which materially affect calling it correctly.

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 33%, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It restates that chart1 and chart2 are required and describes the counting direction, yet it never disambiguates which chart is the bride — important because the schema labels chart1 as groom and chart2 as bride, the reverse of natural expectation. The 'school' parameter (tamil/kerala), which the schema says changes Stree Deergham scoring, is not mentioned at all.

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?

Names the exact factor ('Stree Deergha porutham alone') and states what it computes plus its interpretation thresholds (above 13 agrees, above 7 partly). The word 'alone' signals it is the single-factor variant, distinguishing it from the aggregate porutham sibling, though it never names that sibling 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: 'alone' suggests picking this instead of the combined Porutham tool when a single factor is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the other porutham siblings (rajju, vedha, mahendra). 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.