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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the group tag ([Vedic]) and the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about what the response contains or how the yoga detection is reported.

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 definition is front-loaded and followed by compact metadata tags and the alias note. Every line is short and functional, though the yoga definition sentence is dense with untranslated Sanskrit jargon that a general agent may not parse.

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. The description adequately states what the tool computes, but for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage and many sibling yoga tools, it omits any usage context or discrimination guidance, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate for the gaps. It adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving half-documented params like zodiacType, cosmogram, and precision without narrative explanation beyond their schema entries.

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 gives a specific astrological definition of the Dharma-Karmadhipati Yoga (9th and 10th lords conjunct, in mutual graha drishti, or one planet ruling both), so an agent knows exactly what condition is computed. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling yoga tools (parashara raja, dhana, gajakesari, jaimini variants) beyond noting it is a Cursor-friendly alias of the parashara version.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to the numerous sibling yoga tools. The only routing hint is the parenthetical alias note, which tells the agent this is a duplicate of `astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dharma_karmadhipati` but not why or when to prefer either.

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