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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds marginally useful operational context via the endpoint path and the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the returned Yoga value looks like beyond the range.

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 concept name and value range, and the bracketed metadata block is scannable. The formula sentence is slightly ambiguous (imprecise operator precedence), but nothing is padded and it reads in seconds.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool where two-thirds of parameters lack schema descriptions, the description does not fill the gap: it never explains the optional controls (ayanamsa, timezone, precision, fields, houseSystem) or how the result relates to the full panchang. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input-side guidance is materially incomplete.

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 several inputs (city, name, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, date, time, latitude, longitude) carry no documentation anywhere. The description merely repeats the four required parameter names that the schema already enforces and adds no meaning, format, or default guidance to compensate.

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?

Names the specific resource (Surya-Chandra Yoga, the Yoga limb of Panchang, values 1-27) and even gives the underlying formula, which cleanly separates it from the sibling panchang tools for tithi, karana, nakshatra, hora and choghadia. However it never explicitly routes the agent away from panchang_full, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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: nothing tells the agent to pick this over astroway_vedic_panchang_full or the other limb-specific panchang tools. The bracketed [Required:] line only restates schema essentials and provides no context or exclusions.

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