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 context beyond that — the textual sources (Jaimini Sutras 2.x, Sanjay Rath commentary) and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but says nothing about how the yoga is scored or what the evaluation covers.

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?

Extremely tight: the yoga definition, its sources, and the group/cost metadata are all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The definition of the yoga condition is complete for interpretation, but the absence of any guidance on this tool's relationship to the sibling yoga tools leaves a real gap for selection.

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 birth-data fields are self-evident, but ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, and the compact-mode fields are left to the schema (or undocumented) with no clarification from the description.

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 defines the exact astrological condition being computed (Atmakaraka in Lagna/Kendra OR conjunct Amatyakaraka), which tells an agent what this tool evaluates. It distinguishes itself from the many jaimini yoga siblings (dhana, daridra, viparita, karaka_yoga) by naming the Raja yoga variant, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'compute' or 'detect'.

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 guidance on when to invoke this versus astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_yogas, jaimini_karaka_yoga, or jaimini_full. The agent must infer from the name that this is a single-yoga check, but nothing states that or any prerequisites.

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