Compatibility — Dashakoota (10-fold 39-point)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the scoring algorithm (Mahendra and Vedha rules) and the cost (50 credits) and group (Vedic). This goes beyond annotations and provides operational context, though it does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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 extremely concise: two sentences explaining the scoring plus a one-line group/cost note. Every sentence serves a purpose—defining scope, giving calculation details, and stating cost. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the detailed scoring rules, the description fails to mention the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot predict what the return value will contain (e.g., total score, breakdown, individual points). This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so the schema sufficiently documents both parameters (chart1, chart2) with types and descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only describes the scoring. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameters.

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 identifies the tool as extended matchmaking adding Mahendra and Vedha on top of Ashtakoot, with a specific max score of 39. It gives a concrete verb ('adds') and resource ('compatibility matchmaking'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot or vedic_compatibility_full, relying on the reader to infer it is an extension.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or cases where another tool (e.g., ashtakoot, full) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and scoring description.

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