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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that yogas are computed from D-1 planetary positions including special lagnas, and that the result is a JSON list. It implies a pure read/computation but never explicitly says nothing is mutated or persisted, leaving a small gap.

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?

Labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHAT IT DOES, RETURNS, NEXT) are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 detailed, and the description still summarizes the JSON list of names and descriptions. The remaining gap is the un-documented 8-parameter input surface, which matters for a compute tool taking coordinates and timezone.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — nothing about latitude/longitude, timezone_offset defaults, or how hour/minute are interpreted. Date/time/location inputs are somewhat self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (planetary yogas in a birth chart), and enumerates concrete yoga families (Pancha Mahapurusha, Raja, Dhana). This clearly separates it from siblings like calculate_birth_chart or calculate_karakas.

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 'WHEN TO USE' block gives an explicit trigger condition and the 'NEXT' line routes the agent to ask_cosmic_advisor for interpretation. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a competing yoga-related tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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