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

Annotations already declare this readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value beyond that: exact start/end dates in the output and a language rule (Hindi text for 'hi', English otherwise, links open the VedicDost page). It says nothing about response size for long horizons, pagination, or rate/usage limits, which are the remaining behaviors an agent might care about.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and bounded by the horizon, then example queries. The mention of 'VedicDost's software' is minor provenance rather than wasted space, and nothing is padded.

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 8 parameters but full schema coverage, one required field, and no output schema, the description needs to convey what comes back, and it does (Mahadasha and Antardasha entries with exact start and end dates). It is nearly sufficient; a brief note on the volume or shape of the returned period list would close the last gap.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form, and the description only restates the year horizon and its default of 10, both of which appear in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb-shaped resource: Vimshottari Mahadasha and Antardasha periods with exact start and end dates over a configurable horizon. The scope is unambiguous, but the description never distinguishes it from conceptually adjacent siblings such as life_event_timing or get_kundli, which an agent may also consider for timing questions.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasing in quotes ('which dasha is running', 'when does my Saturn mahadasha start', 'dasha periods'), which is enough for an agent to recognize the intended context. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative for overlapping timing queries, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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