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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the exact algorithmic rule (start from yogini of Moon's nakshatra, first MD truncated by elapsed fraction) — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or response shape.

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 essential fact (36-year cycle) and then compact enumerations of yoginis, rulers and periods. The [Group]/[Cost] tags are boilerplate but short; every sentence carries domain information without 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema fully documents birth data, fields and precision. The one gap is sibling differentiation across the four other Yogini levels, which leaves an agent guessing which endpoint matches a requested depth.

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%, with body, fields and precision all documented in the schema itself (including the detailed birth-data description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

The description names the specific system (36-year Yogini Dasha) and details its structure — 8 yoginis, their rulers, periods, and starting rule — so an agent can tell it computes the Yogini major-period framework. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the four sibling yogini levels (antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma), so the mahadasha scope is only implied by the name/title.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. With siblings astroway_vedic_dashas_yogini_antar, _pratyantar, _prana and _sookshma in the catalog, the description should say this returns the major (mahadasha) level and route sub-period queries elsewhere, but it offers nothing on selection.

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