Compatibility — Ashtakoot Guna Milan (8-fold 36-point)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns (per-Kuta scores, dosha flags, threshold verdict) and traditional threshold values. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful operational details.

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 concise: one sentence establishing purpose and one sentence detailing outputs and thresholds, plus metadata (group, cost). No wasted words; front-loaded with essential information. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given moderate complexity (8 Kutas, doshas, verdict), the description covers main outputs but lacks output schema or format details. It mentions per-Kuta scores, dosha flags, and threshold verdict, which is sufficient for an agent to understand expectations. Without output schema, the description carries the burden and does so adequately.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for chart1 and chart2 explaining required fields and defaults. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning; it focuses on the computation and outputs. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 the tool performs 'Canonical 8-Kuta matchmaking out of 36 points' and lists the eight Kutas by name. It specifies outputs (per-Kuta scores, dosha flags, threshold verdict). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_compatibility_full or vedic_compatibility_bhrigu_match, making the purpose 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 description implies usage for Ashtakoot Guna Milan but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other Vedic compatibility tools (e.g., vedic_compatibility_dashakoota, vedic_compatibility_manglik_check). An agent receives no 'when-not' or alternative suggestions, leaving selection to inference.

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