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

Beyond the annotations declaring readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool reads from a static catalog, does no birth chart analysis, and summarizes the content of the returned entry. The main gap is that it doesn't describe any additional response-shape details, but the output fields are at least summarized.

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 response is well structured and front-loads the primary benefit, with the chart-detection boundary and alternative living in the following citation. The peek into the static catalog adds some length but is used for distinction, not padding.

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 three-param lookup tool with an all-documented schema and a no-opshort hint, the description covers the main lookup, its return types, and the boundary to detect-typed, sibling tool. The only absent thing is a full list of actual return fields, but that is adequately abstracted by 'formation conditions, life results, and quality classification'.

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 coverage is 100%, so id, lang and compact are thoroughly described in the input schema. The description only adds that `id` belongs to a stationary, catalog-ent of 301 yogas, which is helpful but does not compensatea significantly beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the dictionary entry for a specific named yoga' in the 301-entry glossary, and lists exactly what is returned (formation conditions, life results, quality classification). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the birth-chart analysis endpoint by stating this is NOT chart analysis.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for glossary lookup of a named yoga, and when NOT to use it: for chart-driven present/absent verdicts, users should call POST /yoga/detect. It even names the alternative endpoint, making the routing decision explicit.

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