Compatibility — Bhrigu-match (7H placement)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds context that it counts benefic/malefic planets and labels status, and clarifies it is not a numerical score. No contradictions, and additional behavioral details (e.g., cost, group) are included.

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?

Description is very concise: two sentences plus metadata tags. No extraneous information; purpose, output type, and cost are clearly stated upfront.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description hints at return format (labels status). However, it could be more complete by detailing the output structure (e.g., per planet or overall). For a moderate-complexity tool, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, with both chart parameters having full descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add significant semantic detail beyond referencing 'both partners'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it is a Bhrigu Sanhita-style 7th house planetary placement summary for both partners, counts benefic/malefic planets, and labels status. It distinguishes from other Vedic compatibility tools by focusing on 7H placement and explicitly notes it is not a numerical match score.

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?

Description implies usage for 7th house compatibility analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot or vedic_compatibility_full. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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