Dashas: Yogini Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine computational context — the start rule (yogini of the Moon's nakshatra) and that the first MD is truncated by elapsed nakshatra fraction — plus the 20-credit cost tier. It does not state anything about the response shape, error behaviour, or how targetDate/targetTime affect the calculation.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core definition front-loaded, followed by compact metadata lines for group, endpoint, and cost. The eight-yogini enumeration is verbose but earns its place by naming the exact periods an agent or user will see in the output.

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?

For a well-specified one-body-parameter tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description supplies the domain semantics (sequence, rulers, durations, start/truncation rule) needed to interpret results. Missing only the relationship to sub-period siblings and any note on how target date inputs are used.

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%, with a detailed birth-data block explaining date/time formats, timezone vs timezoneOffset, ayanamsa, and houseSystem, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only indirect meaning (that birth-time precision matters via the nakshatra fraction) and says nothing about targetDate/targetTime.

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 resource and cycle: the 36-year Yogini Mahadasha, enumerating the 8 yoginis, their rulers, and their 1-8 year periods. This is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling dashas tools (yogini_antar, yogini_prana, vimshottari_maha, ashtottari_maha), so the agent must infer 'maha' means the top-level period.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With roughly a dozen vedic_dashas_* siblings, the description should say something like 'for sub-periods within a mahadasha use yogini_antar/pratyantar/prana', but it provides no routing. Usage is only implied by the enumerated periods.

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