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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world computation, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add value beyond that: it discloses the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), the endpoint, and the specific flags returned (e.g. 'challenge flag' for AK in dusthana). It does not cover latency, caching, or error conditions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact enumeration of checks and a metadata block. Only the 'Phase 2 block 19' roadmap sentence is arguably noise, but it is one sentence and not disruptive.

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 described, and cost/endpoint/required inputs are given. However, for a 15-parameter astrological computation the description is silent on which parameters affect results and how this differs from the numerous sibling yoga endpoints, leaving real gaps.

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%, so the description must carry more weight, and it only lists the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) without explaining their meaning or format — information already present in the schema's required array. The eleven optional parameters (ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, precision, etc.) that materially change the computed yogas get no mention.

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 a specific verb/resource (Jaimini yoga checks) and enumerates the exact checks performed (Raja via AK in Lagna/Kendra, marriage via DK in trine, AK+PK success, AK in dusthana). It is harder to place against the already-listed siblings (astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja/dhana/daridra/viparita), because the 'Phase 2 will add' note suggests those dedicated endpoints do not exist yet.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement of which chart/context this is appropriate for, and no routing such as 'use jaimini_full for a complete picture.' The only comparative statement is a forward-looking roadmap note about future endpoints, which does not help an agent choose among current siblings.

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