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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — that all six detectors run server-side and return one structured response, plus the 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the aggregate identity and detector list, followed by two bracketed metadata tags. No filler, and the most selection-relevant fact (it runs everything) comes first.

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, multi-detector report the description covers what it does and what it costs, and the output schema handles return values. It omits any parameter guidance and any explicit routing advice versus the six individual yoga tools, leaving meaningful gaps for such a complex call.

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?

The description says nothing about any of the 15 parameters (birth date/time, coordinates, ayanamsa, timezone, campos, compact-mode fields/precision). With schema description coverage at only 33%, several parameters are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the 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 verb+resource ('Combined Parashara yoga report') and enumerates exactly which six detectors it aggregates, which are themselves sibling tools. An agent can distinguish this aggregate from astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_raja/_dhana/etc. without opening any schema.

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 word 'Combined' plus the list of the six constituent detectors implies this is the one-shot alternative to calling them individually, but the description never states that explicitly or says when a single-detector call is preferable. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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