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 cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about return structure, though the output schema exists, and its concept text does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the yoga definition, and metadata is clearly bracketed. However it contains a stray non-English token ('там') and spends its limited space defining the concept rather than the operation, so the structure does not fully serve tool selection.

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 calculation tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description omits any mention of the required birth-data inputs, sidereal/ayanamsa options, or how to scope the result. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the invocation-critical gaps remain.

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 mentions no parameters at all — not the required date/time/latitude/longitude, nor ayanamsa, houseSystem, or the compact-mode fields. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 Adhi Yoga concept (benefics in 6th/7th/8th from Moon) and hints it is 'powerful for status and prosperity', but never states the tool's action — no verb like 'compute' or 'detect whether the yoga is present'. Against many sibling yoga tools (parashara_full, raja, dhana, gajakesari) there is no differentiation of what this one returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full or other yoga tools. The agent must infer that this is a targeted single-yoga calculation rather than the full yogas report.

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