Team Compatibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, but does not contradict them. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is brief (two sentences plus example), but the example is lengthy and not explained. It could be structured better, e.g., with parameter descriptions or usage notes. Every sentence earns its place but lacks clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return values (e.g., a numeric score, interpretation). Given the complexity of astrological compatibility and the large number of sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and output.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. The example shows some fields but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'houseSystem' represents). This is a significant gap given the high parameter count.

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 clearly states it computes a 'Founder × partner compatibility score' and groups it under 'Business Astrology', indicating a business-focused compatibility assessment. However, it does not differentiate from other compatibility tools like horoscope_compatibility or synastry that might also be used for business pairs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing birth data of two individuals) or when not to use it (e.g., if detailed synastry analysis is needed). An example is provided but does not serve as usage direction.

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