Yogas — Raja (royal)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, destructive, idempotent hints. Description adds valuable behavioral context: detection rules (aspect types: 7th universal, Mars 4/8, Jupiter 5/9, Saturn 3/10), strict parivartana definition, and cost/group labels. 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?

Description is relatively concise with a clear structure: purpose, conditions, group/cost, example. The group and cost lines could be moved to metadata, but they don't overly bloat the text. The example is helpful.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain required vs optional, parameter meanings, or what the tool returns. The example shows input but no response structure. Contextual completeness is low.

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 coverage is 0% and description provides no parameter explanations. 11 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude, houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram) are unexplained. Only an example request body is given, which doesn't describe meaning or defaults.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool as detecting Raja Yoga per BPHS A.36-37, specifying three conditions (conjunction, mutual graha drishti with detailed aspects, strict parivartana). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja by specifying the Parashari source and criteria.

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 when to use: for Parashari Raja Yoga detection. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of BPHS and the three conditions contrasts with similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., vedic_yogas_jaimini_raja). Some guidance on selection criteria would improve clarity.

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