Jaimini: Yogas (basic AK/DK/PK set)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context: cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), HTTP endpoint, and the exact required inputs. It does not explain what the response contains, but an output schema exists, lowering the burden.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful checks. However, the Phase 2 roadmap sentence consumes roughly a third of the text and is both non-actionable and contradicted by existing sibling tools, and the bracketed metadata, while scannable, adds bulk.

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?

Cost, group, endpoint, and the enumerated yoga checks give an agent enough to decide and call, and an output schema covers return values. But for a 13-parameter chart-computation tool, the description never addresses how sidereal/zodiac/house-system choices affect the yoga results, leaving a real semantic gap.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate for undocumented inputs like cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, and ayanamsa ordering — and it says nothing about any of them. The only parameter content is restating the four required fields, which the schema's 'required' array already conveys.

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 verb and resource ('Basic Jaimini-yoga checks based on chara karakas') and enumerates the four checks performed (Raja yoga, marriage yoga, AK+PK conjunction, AK in dusthana), which tells an agent exactly what the output covers. It does not distinguish itself from the many existing yoga siblings (astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja, _dhana, _full, _karaka_yoga), and the 'Phase 2 block 19 will add...' note is stale since those endpoints already exist in the catalog.

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 word 'Basic' juxtaposed with a promise of future dedicated endpoints implies this is the lightweight/combined yoga check versus the per-yoga endpoints, but that routing logic is never stated explicitly. No when-not-to-use conditions and no alternative named by tool name. Adequate implication, no real guidance.

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