Yogas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the '00:00' time edge case and the warning that yoga house logic may be wrong if true birth time is unknown. It also links to the full output/error contract.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: purpose, workflow, input contract, disambiguation, and documentation link. Every section earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the core behavior, workflow context, input contract caveats, sibling disambiguation, and points to the full contract. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance by clarifying the global BirthData contract and explicitly warning about the '00:00' time value, which is not fully explained in the schema. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 names a specific verb ('Evaluates'), a specific resource ('natal chart'), and a clear scope ('named classical yogas'), and lists the exact output fields per hit. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section explicitly distinguishes it from asterwise_get_natal_chart and asterwise_get_panchanga, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section gives explicit before/after recommendations: run asterwise_get_natal_chart first and asterwise_get_doshas after. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names alternatives and explains why they are not this tool. This is unusually complete usage guidance.

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