Yogas: Raja (royal)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the required-input envelope, which an agent needs before calling a billable endpoint. It also discloses the exact computation semantics (which drishti counts, what qualifies as strict parivartana), which is real behavioural context. It stops short of saying what happens when no yoga is found.

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 with the substantive definition, then a compact bracketed metadata block for group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. Dense but every clause carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the required parameters that the schema already marks.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus cost note cover the operational envelope. For a 13-parameter Vedic tool, however, the description leaves the sidereal-configuration surface entirely undocumented, and it does not establish its relationship to the umbrella parashara_full tool an agent would likely reach for first.

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 is expected to compensate. Instead it lists the four required parameters, which the schema's required array already declares, and says nothing about ayanamsa, ayanamsaId, houseSystem, zodiacType, or cosmogram — all of which change the outcome of a sidereal Vedic calculation. Marginal value over the structured 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 verb (detection) and resource (Raja Yoga), quotes the governing source BPHS A.36-37, and enumerates the three admissible sambandha mechanisms. This is enough to separate it from astroway_vedic_yogas_parashara_full, _dhana, _gajakesari, or the Jaimini raja variant without opening their schemas.

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 domain scope implies when to use it (a Vedic natal chart, Raja Yoga specifically), and the [Required]/[Cost] block tells the agent what inputs and credits are needed. But it never names an alternative or an exclusion — nothing says 'use parashara_full to get all yogas' or 'skip if outside the Vedic tradition', so the routing decision is left to inference.

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