vedika_compatibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the prerequisite (birth details for BOTH parties), the scoring scale and acceptable threshold, the Mangal Dosha cross-check in kundali mode, and the per-call cost ($0.040-0.048). It does not state what the response contains or error behavior for missing/invalid birth data, leaving a gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite, then structured as a compact enumeration of modes and cost. Dense but every clause is informative; the main mild redundancy is re-explaining type options already in the schema.

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?

For a nested-object, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, mode semantics, scoring scale, and threshold. It could go further on what the return payload looks like (per-factor scores, dosha verdict), but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, including per-type and per-field explanations, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description restates the type enum meanings and adds the 36-point interpretation, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides – baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific domain and action (Vedic marriage/relationship compatibility matching) and enumerates the four scoring systems it supports. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vedika_western_relationship and vedika_matrimony_match, and an agent knows both male and female birth details are mandatory.

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?

Gives clear routing among the four modes (guna-milan default, kundali adds Mangal Dosha, nakshatra-porutham is 10-factor South Indian, thirumana-porutham is Tamil) and an interpretive threshold (18+/36 acceptable). It does not explain when to prefer this over the sibling vedika_matrimony_match, which is the one explicit alternative an agent would need to disambiguate.

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