Yogas: Jaimini Raja yoga

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and an output schema exists, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), the endpoint, and the interpretive lineage — but says nothing about the response shape or how a negative result is expressed.

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 yoga definition is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by source attribution and bracketed metadata tags. No sentence is wasted and length is appropriate for the tool's scope.

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?

Purpose, cost, and required inputs are covered, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. But for a 13-parameter tool with very low schema coverage and a dense sibling cluster of Jaimini yoga endpoints, the description should say which optional knobs (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem) matter here.

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 needs to compensate and does not: it merely repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema. Booleans/options like cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, and even the Vedic-relevant ayanamsa choice are left entirely to the schema or undocumented.

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?

The description states the exact classical condition the tool evaluates (Atmakaraka in Lagna/Kendra OR conjunct Amatyakaraka) and cites its sources, so an agent knows this is a single-yoga detector rather than a general chart tool. It does not, however, name the closely related siblings (astroway_vedic_yogas_jaimini_full, astroway_vedic_jaimini_yogas, astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_raja), so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 by the definitional rule: use it to test whether this specific Raja yoga is present. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the 'full' Jaimini yoga bundle or the Parashara Raja tool, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the required birth-data fields.

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