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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: the evaluation emits rule, evidence, cancellation tests, a participant-strength grade, and the dasha periods activating each yoga — i.e., it tells the agent what analysis is actually performed and surfaced.

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?

A single lead label ('YOGAS.') front-loads the topic and one dense sentence carries the whole scope, with no filler. The long enumerated list is justified because it defines the tool's coverage boundary, though it pushes toward the verbose end.

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 explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description fully characterizes the analytical scope. What is missing is only routing guidance against the many overlapping analysis siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 78%, so the schema already documents nearly all nine parameters (date, time, place, lat/long/timezone, asOfIso). The description contributes no parameter-level detail such as the coordinate-vs-place alternative or how asOfIso drives the dasha windows, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Evaluates') and resource ('about a hundred classical yogas') and then enumerates the exact families covered (Nabhasa, Pancha Mahapurusha, Chandra/Surya, Raja, Dhana, Viparita, Parivartana, Neecha Bhanga, Lakshmi/Saraswati/Parvata). This clearly separates it from siblings like calculate_doshas or analyze_house.

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 scope implies when to reach for it (you want yoga formation/strength/timing analysis), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for overlapping tools such as calculate_doshas, calculate_strength_profile, or get_timing_context.

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