Yogas — Jaimini Raja yoga

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds source references (Jaimini Sutras 2.x and Sanjay Rath commentary) and an example request body, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not explain what happens if the yoga condition is not met (e.g., empty result or error), and the output format is not described.

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 concise (two sentences plus an example), front-loading the core purpose. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as separating the yoga condition from the example.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the output structure, how to interpret results, or the significance of the yoga. Domain knowledge is assumed, leaving the AI agent with little guidance.

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 must compensate. It does not explain any parameters beyond implicitly showing an example. Many parameters (e.g., timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, houseSystem) are essential for astrological calculations but are not described. This is a critical 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Jaimini Raja yoga: Atmakaraka in Lagna/Kendra OR conjunct Amatyakaraka.' It specifies the exact condition for the yoga, making the purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'compute' or 'return,' which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling yoga tools (e.g., vedic_yogas_jaimini_dhana, vedic_yogas_parashara_raja). There is no mention of when to avoid it or how it differs from alternatives.

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