Compatibility — Parashara full report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds cost (50 credits) and grouping (Vedic), which are useful beyond annotations. No contradiction, but adds limited behavioral context.

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, front-loading key components in a single sentence, followed by metadata (group and cost). No extraneous words; every sentence is necessary.

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 lists response contents (Ashtakoot total, threshold, Manglik check, per-Kuta sub-scores, recommendation), adequately informing the agent of return structure. Input schema covers required parameters, making the description sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for chart objects providing required fields and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 combines multiple matchmaking components (Ashtakoot total, threshold, Manglik check, per-Kuta sub-scores, recommendation) into one call. This distinguishes it from siblings that handle individual aspects, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 use for comprehensive reports via 'combined ... in one call' but does not explicitly state when to use this versus individual siblings (e.g., vedic_compatibility_ashtakoot). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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