Yogas: Jaimini full summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context — the POST endpoint path and a 20-credit (Tier 2) cost — which an agent needs before spending budget. It stops short of describing latency or the depth of the astrological computation.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) that scans quickly. Every line earns its place, though the required-params line is largely redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 13-parameter, 20-credit composite endpoint sitting beside seven more granular Jaimini yoga siblings, the description says too little about when this supersedes them and how the optional calculation settings (ayanamsa, house system) affect the result.

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 carries a heavy burden and does not meet it. The '[Required: date, time, latitude, longitude]' line merely restates the schema's required array and adds nothing about ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, timezone handling, or the city/name fields.

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 ('Composite Jaimini yoga summary') and enumerates the constituent yoga classes (Raja / Dhana / Daridra / Viparita) plus karaka detail. The word 'Composite' implicitly signals it aggregates the sibling single-yoga tools (astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja, _dhana, etc.), but it never names them or states the difference explicitly.

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?

Only implied guidance: 'Composite ... summary' suggests using this when the agent wants all four yoga categories at once instead of the individual sibling endpoints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no statement of what it leaves out compared to astroway_vedic_jaimini_yogas.

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