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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine operational facts beyond them: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the fact that this is a Cursor-friendly alias of astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_pancha_mahapurusha. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or how results are returned, but with output schema present that gap is acceptable.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences front-load the essential yoga definitions, followed by clearly delimited bracket metadata for group and cost. No filler; the only slight inefficiency is that the alias note trails at the end rather than being surfaced earlier.

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 fully explains the domain meaning of the yogas, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. However, for a 15-parameter computation tool with low schema coverage, it omits the required birth-data inputs and prerequisite context, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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 and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate but adds zero parameter guidance. It never mentions date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone handling, ayanamsa selection, or the compact 'fields' mode, leaving several undocumented inputs to inference.

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 names the exact yogas (Ruchaka/Mars, Bhadra/Mercury, Hamsa/Jupiter, Malavya/Venus, Sasha/Saturn) and the precise formation rule (own/exalted sign + kendra 1/4/7/10), so an agent knows what this computes. The action verb is only implied (the title carries 'Yogas'), and it doesn't contrast itself against sibling yoga tools like astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full, which keeps it from a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It states what the yogas are but never tells the agent under what user intent to pick this tool over the other parashara/jaimini yoga siblings, nor that a birth date/time/place is required input.

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