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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the interpretive source ('Per Sanjay Rath modern commentary'), which is mild but real context about the output's doctrinal basis. It does not disclose computation inputs, latency, or credit implications beyond the cost tag.

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 compact and front-loaded: the yoga definition leads, attribution follows. The [Group]/[Cost] tags are machine-readable metadata that earn their place by signaling the 20-credit tier, though they are boilerplate rather than description prose.

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?

Output schema exists, so returns need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter calculation tool the description never signals the required birth-chart inputs or how it relates to the broader Jaimini yoga family, leaving a genuine input-side 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 only 33% across 15 parameters, and the three required core inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) carry no schema descriptions. The description says nothing about parameters or the birth-data required, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 named yoga (Viparita Raja yoga / reverse Raja yoga) and its defining condition (AK in 6/8/12) plus its meaning (success after struggle). This distinguishes it from sibling Jaimini yoga tools like raja, dhana, daridra and karaka_yoga. It stops short of explicitly saying it computes/detects the yoga from a birth chart, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja, _full, _dhana or _daridra, no prerequisites, and no note that birth data is required. The reader must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the concept being described.

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