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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation facts: the endpoint, the four required inputs, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which helps an agent weigh whether to call it. It does not, however, describe response depth or pagination/format behavior.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines: the purpose line first, then group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. No wasted prose, and the most decision-relevant content (what it computes, what it costs) is at the top.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is coverage of a complex 15-parameter surface: no guidance on ayanamsa/zodiac selection, timezone handling, or the 'fields' compact mode, which matters for a Tier 2 paid call. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool of this parameter complexity.

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, and the description compensates for none of it. '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' merely restates the schema's own required array, adding no meaning for the other 11 parameters (fields, ayanamsa, timezone, precision, houseSystem, etc.). Because coverage is low, the description should have supplied parameter meaning but does not.

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 resource and its scope: a composite Jaimini yoga summary covering Raja / Dhana / Daridra / Viparita with karaka details. Listing the four component yoga types implicitly distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools (e.g. astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja, _dhana, _daridra, _viparita), which are the per-yoga counterparts. It stops short of stating the relationship explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The word 'Composite ... summary' implies this is the aggregate call to use when all four yoga families are wanted rather than the individual siblings, but the description never states when to choose it over astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja or _dhana, nor any exclusions. Usage is left to inference from the tool's scope line.

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