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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context - and it does: it discloses the return cardinality (8 yogas), the fields per result (karaka role + house + strength 0-100), the meaning of the kendra/trine/dusthana scoring, and the cost (20 credits, Tier 2). No mention of rate limits or caching, but the added context is substantive.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences followed by group and cost metadata; nothing is redundant. Slightly dense packing of return details, but every clause earns its place.

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 15-parameter chart tool the description is not fully adequate: it fails to cover the undocumented parameters or the timezone/offset interaction, though the shared chart-input conventions are presumably familiar from sibling tools. Return values are well covered even though an output schema exists.

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?

Fifteen parameters with only ~33% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions no parameter at all - no note that date/time/lat/long are required, that ayanamsa and timezone interact, or what 'fields'/'precision' compact mode does. It leaves the description-coverage gap entirely unfilled.

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 a specific verb ('Scans'), resource ('every chara karaka, Atmakaraka..Darakaraka'), and target ('house-based yogas'), and describes what is returned. It implicitly separates itself from astroway_vedic_jaimini_karakas by scanning all 8 karakas for yoga results rather than listing karakas, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement: an agent can infer this is the yoga-strength view over the chara karakas. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer jaimini_yogas or jaimini_karakas instead.

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