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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing context (20 credits, Tier 2) and a structural note about depth, but omits anything about return shape or constraints. Given the annotation coverage, this is a modest but real addition.

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?

It is a single front-loaded clause plus bracketed metadata; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 dasha-calculation tool sitting in a very large, confusable family of Yogini and other dasha endpoints, the description omits the level semantics ('4-level cascade' is never unpacked) and any sibling differentiation. The rich schema and output schema cover I/O, but the conceptual gap remains.

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, fields, and precision parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

It names the resource (Yogini Sookshmadasha) and adds a structural hint ('4-level cascade'), which is more than a bare restatement of the title. However, it never explains what distinguishes this from the many sibling dasha tools (yogini_maha, yogini_antar, yogini_pratyantar, yogini_prana), so an agent cannot tell which Yogini level it needs without outside knowledge.

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 named alternative. The description does not say when an agent should pick sookshma depth versus the maha/antar/pratyantar/prana siblings, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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