divine_get_yogini_dasha

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds domain context about the 8 Yoginis and 36-year cycle, but it does not disclose output behavior, error conditions, or call constraints. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence provides useful domain context, and the third sentence is brief. No unnecessary detail or repetition is present.

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?

The description provides a basic summary but lacks context needed for correct tool selection among many dasha tools. It does not mention when to prefer Yogini Dasha over Vimshottari, Kaal Chakra, or Varshphal Yogini Dasha. Since an output schema exists, return-format coverage is less critical, but selection guidance is still 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?

The description says only 'for a birth chart', which hints that the params object contains birth details, but it adds no meaning about required fields, formats, or the structure of the params argument. Schema description coverage is reported as 0% for the top-level parameter, and although the nested KundliInput schema has field descriptions, the description itself does not compensate.

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 the tool gets Yogini Dasha periods for a birth chart, with a specific verb and resource. It adds domain context ('8 Yoginis', '36-year cycle'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like divine_get_varshphal_yogini_dasha or divine_get_vimshottari_dasha.

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 a use case ('quick predictions and event timing') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from other dasha-related siblings.

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