vedika_western_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost per call, tropical zodiac system, and gender-neutral person slots, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any error/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then chart-type explanations, then input/zodiac/cost details. No filler or redundant repetition.

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 paid two-person astrology calculation with a fully documented schema, the description covers chart semantics, zodiac system, and cost. It omits selection guidance versus sibling relationship tools and any return-shape guidance, leaving some context gaps.

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 parameter documentation is already strong. The description adds conceptual meaning for the type enum and clarifies that person1/person2 are gender-neutral, going slightly beyond what the schema 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?

Names Western relationship astrology and specifies synastry and composite charts for two people, with a clear distinction between the two chart types. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as vedika_compatibility, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 what synastry vs composite mean and, via the schema enum, which type to choose, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to sibling tools like vedika_compatibility or vedika_matrimony_match. Usage is only implied by the relationship-astrology framing.

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