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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds an implementation detail about the detection method (conjunction, graha drishti, parivartana) but does not disclose return format or cost behavior beyond the [Cost] tag. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the key condition. The group and cost tags are useful metadata. No words are wasted.

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?

The description tells the agent exactly what the tool computes (a specific yogic condition). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It could mention that the result is binary (present/absent) or list detected yoga instances, but the core completeness is good for a detection tool.

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 33% across 15 parameters. The description does not explain any input parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude, ayanamsa, etc.). However, the schema itself provides descriptions for many fields (e.g., fields, ayanamsa, timezone, precision), so the description's marginal value is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given that most parameter documentation lives in the schema despite low coverage percentage.

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 technique (Dhana Yoga) and defines the precise astrological condition: lords of wealth houses 1, 2, 5, 9, 11 connected via conjunction, mutual graha drishti, or strict parivartana. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_raja, _adhi, etc. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly name its Parashara-yoga siblings.

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?

The description defines what the tool detects but offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools like astroway_reports_money and astroway_financial_wealth_house exist for wealth analysis, but the description does not point to them. Usage is implied by the name and description, but not elaborated.

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