Kundli Milan (Ashtakoot compatibility)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds significant value beyond annotations: it states 'Read-only deterministic computation (Swiss Ephemeris, Lahiri ayanamsa); no writes, no auth, at least 30 requests/min/IP per server instance, plus a shared engine budget of at least 60/min/IP across all engine-backed tools.' This discloses rate limits, computational method, and authentication requirements. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, behavioral details, and rate limits. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise. For example, the mention of 'no writes, no auth' is repeated in rate limit context. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose, but some redundancy exists.

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 complexity of the tool (nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a comprehensive overview of the output: eight koots with points, total, dosha, cancellation, and verdict. It also addresses the distinction from check_manglik and specifies rate limits. However, it does not describe the exact structure of the output, which could be helpful for an agent to parse the response. The absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for understanding what the tool does.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The tool description does not add significant new information beyond what is in the schema; it mostly reiterates that birth time is required and that place can be replaced with coordinates. This provides minimal additional value, so 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?

The description clearly states it returns classical Ashtakoot marriage compatibility, listing components like eight koots, total out of 36, dosha, cancellation, and verdict. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_love_compatibility, calling it 'name-numerology entertainment' and explicitly says it is not a substitute. It also clarifies that nadi/bhakoot dosha reported is chart-pair compatibility, not individual Mars dosha, directing to check_manglik for that purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever real marriage matching is asked for.' It tells when not to use it: get_love_compatibility is not a substitute. It provides clear guidelines on when to use check_manglik instead for individual Mars dosha. It also specifies that both people need an exact birth time and place.

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