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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description usefully adds the cost tier ('20 credits (Tier 2)') and the exact analytical method. It does not, however, describe output shape or any behavioral caveats beyond the algorithm, so it adds moderate value over the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and source citation, then enumerates the three criteria compactly. The bracketed Group/Cost lines are efficient metadata. It is dense but each clause is informative; a slight tightening of the jargon-heavy criteria list is possible.

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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be restated, and the purpose is fully covered. However, for a 15-parameter Vedic chart tool the absence of any parameter or prerequisite context (e.g. ayanamsa default, required birth data) leaves an agent under-informed about correct invocation.

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?

With 15 parameters at 33% schema description coverage, the description carries a large compensation burden but supplies zero parameter guidance. It never explains the required birth data (date/time/lat/long) or the meaning of ayanamsa, houseSystem, or the compact-mode fields — the key Vedic-specific inputs are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Raja Yoga detection per BPHS A.36-37') and even enumerates the three technical criteria (sambandha via conjunction, graha drishti, parivartana). This clearly distinguishes it from close siblings like astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja and astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dharma_karmadhipati, which a bare name could not.

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?

Explains the detection conditions in depth but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to the many sibling yoga tools (jaimini_raja, dharma_karmadhipati, parashara_full). Usage is implied by the purpose rather than stated.

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