divine_get_yogas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what yogas are and that they indicate specific life outcomes (wealth, fame, spiritual growth), which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations; it complements them with semantic meaning. Since annotations are present, the bar is lower, and this description meets it with useful extra context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It states what the tool does and provides concrete examples without any fluff. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 (requires a full birth details object) and the presence of an output schema (per context), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its purpose. It does not mention required parameters, but the schema enforces them, so an agent can infer the need for complete birth data. The description is sufficient for a read-only analytical tool, and no critical usage details are missing.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The description makes no mention of required birth details (e.g., date, time, place) or how to format the input. While the schema itself contains descriptions for each field, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics directly from the tool description.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('all yogas'), and scope ('present in the birth chart'). It differentiates from sibling tools like divine_get_yoga_panchang (which focuses on panchang yogas) and divine_get_kaal_sarpa_yoga (a specific yoga), as it covers all birth chart yogas generically. The examples (Dhana Yoga, Raja Yoga) further clarify the resource type.

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 for birth chart analysis ('present in the birth chart'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. With many sibling tools (e.g., divine_get_yoga_panchang, divine_get_nav_pancham_yoga), it would be helpful to explicitly state that this is for birth-chart yogas, not daily panchang yogas. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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