Yoga Practice by Sign

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful operational context the annotations cannot: the POST endpoint, the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, and the required fields. It does not say whether the recommendation derives from natal birth data (implied by date/time/lat/long) or a current-sky sign, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for an astrology-yoga tool.

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 content line is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata is dense rather than padded. It is arguably too terse for a 13-parameter tool, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 tool with 13 parameters and only 23% schema coverage the description should clarify what the birth-data inputs actually drive and whether the optional astrological settings change the yoga output. That reasoning is absent.

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, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the four required fields. The nine optional parameters (name, city, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, etc.) and their effect on the result are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'Sign-specific yoga focus + asanas + pranayama' identifies the resource and content type, but it is a noun fragment with no verb and no hint of how the sign is derived. It does not distinguish itself from the closest siblings such as astroway_wellness_exercise or astroway_wellness_diet, which use the same wellness-sign framing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many wellness siblings. The '[Required: ...]' bracket lists mandatory fields but that is schema restatement, not usage context.

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