vedika_matrimony_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it lists what the default report includes (Ashtakoota Guna Milan, Dashakoot summary, dosha cancellation, compatibility verdict), notes the alternative South Indian system, and warns about pricing. It does not cover authentication or rate-limit behavior, but for this domain it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then default report contents, then the South Indian alternative and pricing caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the default and alternative reports contain. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor: it could say more about output shape or when to prefer this over vedika_compatibility, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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%, so the nested bride/groom birth fields are already well documented. The description adds useful semantic context for southIndian (Porutham vs unified North Indian report), but this is also present in the schema description, so it only slightly exceeds the baseline for fully documented 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?

States a specific verb-like operation (Kundali matching), the exact resource/domain (marriage compatibility), and names the underlying systems (Ashtakoota, Dashakoot, Porutham). An agent can distinguish this from generic vedika_compatibility because the scope is explicitly marriage/Kundali matching.

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?

Explains the default mode, how to switch to South Indian Porutham via southIndian=true, and adds a pricing caveat before use. It does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling vedika_compatibility tool, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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