Panchang: Yoga

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the transport (POST /v1/vedic/panchang/yoga), the four mandatory inputs, and the 20-credit Tier 2 price, which an agent needs for cost-aware planning.

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 lines: the definition plus formula first, then bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. Every element carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cost/endpoint coverage is good. For a 13-param tool, however, the description leaves the sidereal settings untouched — notably that ayanamsa choice shifts the computed yoga — which is exactly the kind of ambiguity that produces wrong invocations.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array. The meaningful knobs — ayanamsa (which changes the sidereal longitudes and hence the yoga number), zodiacType, timezone vs timezoneOffset — get no treatment in the 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?

Names the specific resource (Surya-Chandra / Nitya Yoga, 1-27) and gives the exact computation formula, so an agent knows precisely what number comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the neighbouring panchang tools (tithi, karana, hora, choghadia) by the yoga label, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied: supply a date, time and coordinates when you need the panchang yoga for that moment. There is no statement of when to prefer astroway_vedic_panchang_full, tithi, or karana instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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