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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the computational rule (starts from the yogini of the Moon's nakshatra at birth, first MD truncated by elapsed nakshatra fraction) and the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2). It does not describe the shape or length of the returned dasha list, though that is partly the output schema's job.

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-loaded with the core definition (36-year Yogini Dasha) before the supporting detail, and the two prose sentences each carry information. The yogini-name enumeration is dense but is genuinely needed to interpret the output; the bracketed group/endpoint/cost tags are compact metadata rather than filler.

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?

With a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description only needs to establish what is being computed and how — which it does thoroughly, including the truncation rule for the first period. The one notable gap is level disambiguation within the large dasha family, which the agent must infer from the 'Maha' token alone.

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 100%, including a very detailed body/birth-data description, so the schema already carries all parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline 3.

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 specific artifact computed (the 36-year Yogini Mahadasha) and even enumerates the eight yoginis, their ruling planets, and their period lengths, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling levels astroway_vedic_dashas_yogini_antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma, which share the same system name.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. Given that five yogini-dasha siblings exist (maha/antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma) plus several other dasha systems (vimshottari, ashtottari, chara), the description never says why an agent should pick the Maha (top) level instead of a sub-period level.

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