Yogas: Jaimini Daridra yoga

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds context annotations do not carry: the endpoint, the mandatory inputs, and a concrete cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which is operationally valuable for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 substantive line is one dense sentence with the yoga condition front-loaded, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string duplicates transport information an agent rarely needs to reason about.

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 13-parameter computational tool this leaves gaps: AK and AmK are never expanded (Atmakaraka/Amatyakaraka), and it does not say whether the result is a boolean flag, a score, or a list of matched conditions. The existence of an output schema offsets the return-value gap, but the domain jargon and undiscussed optional parameters remain under-explained.

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 would need to compensate, and it does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array and says nothing about ayanamsa, houseSystem, zodiacType, cosmogram, or the timezone handling parameters.

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?

It names the specific yoga (Jaimini Daridra), states the exact formation rule (AK and AmK both in dusthanas 6/8/12), and says what the result flags (poverty/struggle). That is far more precise than the title alone, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_dhana or jaimini_viparita.

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 only implied: a birth chart (date/time/lat/long) is required, so an agent can infer it is a natal chart evaluation for this one yoga. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the other Jaimini yoga tools or the full jaimini_yogas rollup, and no exclusions.

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