Yogas — Karakamsa chart (12-house projection)

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context (mechanics of Karakamsa projection, cost tier) without contradiction. However, it doesn't cover error handling or prerequisites, keeping from a 5.

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?

Concise with clear front-loading: opening sentence defines Karakamsa. Example and cost line are useful. Could drop the example or integrate parameter explanations, but overall efficient.

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?

Explains the concept and specific yogas, but given the complexity (Vedic Jaimini) and no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (list, chart, interpretation). Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but only provides an example showing a subset of parameters. Most parameters (houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, etc.) are unexplained, leaving the agent without meaning beyond their names.

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 explicitly states the tool computes yogas from the Karakamsa chart (Atmakaraka's sign in D9 treated as lagna). It names specific outputs: 5th-house planet = Ishta Devata, 12th-house planet = Moksha Indicator. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling yoga tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vedic_yogas_jaimini_full or vedic_jaimini_karakas. The description lacks context for selection criteria.

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