Compatibility — Manglik check (single chart)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it detects status. It does not contradict annotations but provides no additional transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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 with two sentences, a group tag, cost info, and an example request body. It is front-loaded and scannable, though the example could be better integrated.

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 the 11 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and complex Vedic context, the description fails to explain the output, how to interpret results, or how to use in a full compatibility flow. The school parameter mismatch also undermines completeness.

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?

The input schema has 11 parameters with 0% coverage description. The description mentions a 'school' parameter not present in the schema and only provides an example with date, time, etc. It fails to explain the meaning or usage of most schema fields like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, etc.

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 detects Manglik status for a single chart, distinguishes it from sibling vedic_compatibility_mangal_match (which is for two-chart matching) by specifying 'single chart', and notes the school selection option.

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 indicates use in 'compatibility context for matchmaking flows' and references the same canon as the doshas endpoint, giving context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for two-chart scenarios, though it is implied.

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