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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the output shape (3-level cascade, 8 PDs per AD), which is genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't carry, but it stops short of any deeper behavioral context such as latency or period coverage.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the technique and its cascade shape, followed by compact group/cost tags. Nothing is wasted, though the terse notation 'MD → AD → 8 PDs' assumes the reader knows the abbreviations.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain returns or params. It is minimally adequate, but for a specialized Vedic dasha tool sitting among five near-identical Yogini siblings, the absence of any routing or prerequisite guidance leaves a real gap.

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 birth-data object, fields and precision params are all documented in-schema (with targetDate/targetTime for period selection). The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

States the specific technique (Yogini Pratyantardasha) and the structural depth it returns (MD → AD → 8 PDs), which implicitly places it at the 3rd level versus the sibling _maha, _antar, _prana and _sookshma tools. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly says 'this is the pratyantar (3rd) level; use _maha for the top level', so the differentiation requires the agent to already know the dasha hierarchy.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the four sibling Yogini dasha tools it must be chosen against. Group and cost metadata are the only extra framing provided.

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