Yogas — Jaimini Karaka yoga (all 8 karakas)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it scans for house-based yogas and returns strength scores and manifestation hints. It does not contradict annotations but also does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or error handling. With annotations present, the description adds marginal value.

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 description is reasonably concise with two main sentences plus group, cost, and an example. It front-loads the core functionality. The example request body aids understanding without excessive text.

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?

Given the complexity (8 karakas, house-based yogas, strength scoring) and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level output description. It does not explain what the strength score means, how houses are determined, or the structure of the returned data. More detail is needed for complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. However, it only provides an example request body without describing any parameter meaning. Parameters like ayanamsaId, zodiacType, or houseSystem are critical for Vedic astrology but are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool scans every chara karaka for house-based yogas and returns 8 yogas with karaka role, house, and strength score 0-100. It is specific about the verb 'scans' and the resource 'chara karaka', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like vedic_yogas_jaimini_daridra and vedic_yogas_jaimini_dhana by focusing on all 8 karakas.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other Vedic yoga tools (e.g., vedic_yogas_jaimini_full). It mentions group and cost but lacks context for selection. No exclusion or alternative references.

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