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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs for budgeting, but says nothing about output size, time span, or latency for this deepest cascade level.

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?

One line plus two bracketed tags — front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing leans toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 annotations cover safety. But for a deeply specialized Vedic tool in a family of five sibling dasha levels, the description omits what the prana grain represents, its time scale, and how it relates to the other Yogini levels — the agent cannot confidently choose or interpret it.

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%, and the nested body schema is exceptionally detailed (timezone handling, houseSystem letters, rejected short forms). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 dasha system (Yogini) and its level (Prana), and 'finest grain' hints at how it differs from the sibling _maha/_antar/_pratyantar/_sookshma variants. However, it supplies no verb (compute/return) and '5-level cascade' is cryptic terminology an agent cannot decode without outside knowledge of the Yogini taxonomy.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the four sibling Yogini levels or when the finest prana grain is preferable to sookshma or pratyantar. The agent gets only a level label and cost, nothing about selection.

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