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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — the group tag and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost — plus the interpretive framing as a wealth indicator, but says nothing about what the result contains or how ayanamsa/house settings affect the computation.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the yoga rule comes first, then group and cost metadata. Nothing is padded, though the metadata lines are administrative rather than task-guiding.

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 core yoga definition is given. Still, for a 15-parameter chart tool whose results depend heavily on ayanamsa and house system, and which sits among a dozen near-identical yoga siblings, the definition is thin on configuration and routing context.

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 only 33% across 15 parameters, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. The four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) are self-evident, but the influential optional settings for a Jaimini calculation — ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, precision — get no help from the description, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 a specific technique (Jaimini Dhana yoga) and even states its defining rule — AK or AmK in the 2nd/11th from lagna — which tells an agent exactly what is being computed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling yoga tools (jaimini_daridra, jaimini_raja, jaimini_full, parashara_dhana), so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 alternatives such as the broader jaimini_full or the Parashara dhana yoga sibling. The agent is left to infer that this is one narrow yoga among a family of near-identical tools.

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