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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-schema context: the group ('Vedic') and a cost of 20 credits (Tier 2). It does not disclose other behavioral details such as auth requirements or output format, but the annotation baseline is already strong.

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 compact and front-loaded: the yoga definition comes first, followed by useful metadata tags. The one interpretive sentence ('Exceptionally fortunate combination') is brief and does not bloat the text, though it is more flavor than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete—it omits any mention of required inputs, usage context, or how this yoga tool relates to its many siblings.

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, so the description is expected to compensate. It says nothing about any parameter—not the required birth data (date, time, latitude, longitude) nor the optional ayanamsa, houseSystem, or compact-mode fields. The agent gets no parameter guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 specific Vedic yoga this tool targets (9th and 10th lords conjunct, in mutual graha drishti, or one planet ruling both), making the resource clear. However, it never states the action the tool performs (e.g., 'computes' or 'detects'), and it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling astroway_vyp_dharma_karmadhipati.

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?

Nothing in the description says when to use this tool versus the many other yoga tools (e.g., astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full, astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_raja, astroway_vyp_dharma_karmadhipati). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints.

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