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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotations: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost (important for agent budgeting) and the exact endpoint. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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 yoga names and formation rule, followed by tightly formatted metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) with no filler. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is re-listing the required parameters.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies domain context (which yogas, how formed), cost and endpoint, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; only parameter-level detail for the non-required options is thin.

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%, so the description is obliged to compensate and does not. It merely restates the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema's `required` array already declares, leaving undocumented parameters such as houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram, city and name with no explanatory value added.

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 exact resource — the five Pancha Mahapurusha yogas (Ruchaka/Bhadra/Hamsa/Malavya/Sasha) — and states the precise formation rule (own/exalted sign plus kendra placement), which clearly separates it from broad yoga siblings like astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full. It never states the verb explicitly (compute/detect/return), but the scope is unambiguous to an agent reading the sibling list.

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 other yoga tools (parashara_full, gajakesari, raja, dhana, etc.). The alias note implies the tool exists under two names, but nothing tells the agent why to pick this over the aggregate yoga endpoint.

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