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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the POST endpoint, the required inputs, and notably the 20-credit (Tier 2) cost per call. It does not, however, describe output shape or limits, which the output schema partly covers.

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 short and front-loads the computation rule before the bracketed metadata block. The formula sentence is dense but earns its place; no filler text. Slightly terse given the tool's parameter complexity, but structurally clean.

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, and the core computation is stated. But for a 15-parameter chart tool with only 33% schema coverage, the absence of any description of the sidereal/zodiac/house-system options leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 carries a compensating burden it does not meet. It merely restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema already marks as required, and says nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, fields, precision, or the enum choices.

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 verb and resource: it computes a Lal Kitab dhana/'Sukh' prosperity yoga score by counting benefics (Moon/Mercury/Venus/Jupiter) in houses 2/5/9/11 with +2 each. This is far more concrete than the title alone. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dhana or astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_dhana), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 and no comparison to the many competing dhana/prosperity yoga tools in the sibling list. The only context given is the required-parameter list and cost, which the schema and pricing already imply.

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