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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: the endpoint path and, importantly, the cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which an agent needs before calling. It adds no return-format detail, but an output schema exists.

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 yoga definition is front-loaded, followed by tightly packed bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost, alias). Nearly every line earns its place; the required-params line is the only mildly redundant element.

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 annotations cover safety. The description supplies cost and endpoint, which is adequate for invocation, but with 15 parameters at 33% coverage the documentation leaves real gaps (notably house system) that the definition does not fill.

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 fields already in the schema's `required` array, and adds nothing about the many undocumented parameters such as `houseSystem` (a bare enum of single-letter codes) or `cosmogram`.

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 the specific yoga and defines its astronomical condition (9th/10th lords conjunct, in mutual drishti, or one planet ruling both), which distinguishes it from the sibling Parashara yoga tools. It is implicit rather than stated that the tool detects this yoga in a supplied birth chart, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical note that this is a 'cursor-friendly alias for astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_dharma_karmadhipati' is a real routing aid, telling the agent this call is equivalent to the longer-named sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or suggested alternatives within the broader yoga toolset.

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