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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the POST endpoint, the required inputs, and the shape of the result ('net influence and dominant-over metric per house').

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful domain detail, and the bracketed metadata block efficiently conveys endpoint, required params, and cost. It is slightly redundant in re-listing required parameters already present in the schema.

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-value documentation is not the description's burden. For a domain-complex Vedic technique, the description adequately explains what is computed and what it costs; the main gap is parameter-level guidance, which is partially offset by schema descriptions for the non-core fields.

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%, and the description contributes nothing to the 15 parameters beyond restating which four are required — which the schema already enforces. No guidance is added for ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the compact-mode fields, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description names the exact technique (Jaimini Argala/Virodhargala), the verb-like scope (full scan across all 12 houses), and the precise contributing houses (2/4/11 primary, 5 secondary, 8 special for Argala; 12/10/3, 9, 6 for Virodhargala). This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling Jaimini tools like jaimini_aspects, jaimini_drishti_rasi, and jaimini_karakas.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain-specific technique name, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over jaimini_aspects, jaimini_drishti_rasi, or the Jaimini yoga tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer the selection context from the technique label alone.

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