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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuine algorithmic transparency beyond annotations: duration-direction rules by sign type, the inclusive-count-minus-one timing formula, the own-sign = 12 years case, and the co-lord tie-break for Scorpio and Aquarius. It omits operational context such as the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, but the computational behavior disclosed is unusually rich.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool computes, but a large share of the text is implementation minutiae — the per-sign duration formula and the Scorpio/Aquarius co-lord tie-break — that helps confirm output semantics but not selection or invocation. For a tool whose schema already covers inputs, this is heavier than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool computes and how the periods are derived. Its remaining gap is relational: it does not place itself in the 70-plus sibling dasha hierarchy or explain when the positional 'Maha' level is the right depth.

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 the birth-data fields, timezone handling, fields and precision are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never mentions the body fields, the compact-mode fields/precision controls, or the targetDate/targetTime fields present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 states a precise verb+resource: computing Chara Dasha Mahadashas (Jaimini rasi-dasha, lord = sign rather than planet), and it pins the level with '12 Mahadashas of variable duration starting at lagna sign.' It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling Chara sub-period tools (antar/pratyantar/sookshma/prana), so the agent must infer level from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says when Chara Dasha is preferred over Vimshottari, Yogini, Ashtottari or the other dasha systems in the sibling list, and no alternative is named. The 'Default variant = K.N.' note implies a selectable variant but doesn't tell the agent what the options are or when they matter.

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