Yogas — Shubha-graha (functional natures)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by detailing the output structure (7 grahas, fields, reasoning per BPHS rules) and mentions cost and group. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus metadata and an example. It is front-loaded with purpose and output details. Every part serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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, specialized Vedic astrology), the description omits important context: it does not explain how parameters like houseSystem or ayanamsaId affect the result, or clarify what '7 visible grahas' are. The example helps but is insufficient for parameter-heavy use.

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 explain parameters. It only provides an example request body without explaining any of the 11 parameters, their defaults, or their effects. The agent lacks guidance on how to fill parameters beyond the example.

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 specific verb 'identification' and resource 'functional benefic/malefic of grahas per Lagna-lord ownership', and lists the output fields (natural nature, functional nature, houses owned, reasoning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_yogas_jaimini_dhana or vedic_yogas_jaimini_full.

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 implies the tool is for functional nature identification but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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