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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that calculations are sidereal (Lahiri by default) and require birth time/place. It lists the yogas computed, providing sufficient behavioral context for a read-only computation tool. No contradictions.

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 description is a single dense paragraph that lists many yogas. It is moderately concise but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence provides value, but readability could be improved.

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 the complexity of yogas and no output schema, the description names the specific yogas computed and hints at output format (lord pairs and associations). It is fairly complete for a specialized tool, though it could briefly mention the typical return structure.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (sidereal, need birth time/place) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like lat, lon, date, and zodiac.

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 clearly states it computes Vedic yogas including specific named combinations (Pancha Mahapurusha, Gajakesari, etc.). It distinguishes itself from general chart tools like natal_chart by listing specific yoga types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

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 description implies usage by stating 'Needs the birth time and place' and lists required parameters. It gives context about sidereal and default Lahiri, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need specific yogas vs. general chart facts).

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