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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a fixed cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the citation sources, which help an agent judge whether the call is worth making. It does not describe output or caveats, but with annotations doing heavy lifting this is a solid contribution.

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-loads the yoga definition, then compact bracketed metadata lines; there is almost no filler. The endpoint line is arguably redundant given the tool name, but nothing is wasted or bloated.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the bulk of the optional parameters unexplained and offers no sibling routing, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 is expected to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required parameters already declared in the schema's required array, leaving city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and ayanamsaId undocumented in either place. No added meaning beyond the schema.

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 the exact astrological condition the tool evaluates ('Atmakaraka in Lagna/Kendra OR conjunct Amatyakaraka') plus the textual sources, so an agent knows precisely what computation this returns. That rule also implicitly separates it from the near-identical jaimini yoga siblings (dhana, daridra, karaka_yoga). Specific verb+resource with a distinguishing condition.

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 statement of when to choose this over the general astroway_vedic_jaimini_yogas or the sibling yoga tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The required-parameter and cost lines are operational metadata, not routing guidance. In a dense cluster of lookalike Jaimini yoga endpoints, this gap matters most.

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