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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack: the recursive equal-share subdivision rule, the same-direction-at-every-depth constraint, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It still says nothing about response shape or computation limits, but given annotation coverage this is a reasonable 3.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the level name and the cascade structure, followed by the [Group] and [Cost] metadata. Nothing is wasted, though the cascade notation assumes familiarity and takes no space to spell out.

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 annotations plus the rich body schema carry the input contract. The gap is routing: with six dasha systems and five depth levels as siblings, the description does not tell the agent when this pratyantar level is the right choice.

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% and the body schema documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone, ayanamsa and houseSystem in depth, plus the compact-mode fields/precision parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific outcome: the Chara Pratyantardasha, the third level of a cascade (MD → AD → 12 PDs) computed by recursive equal-share subdivision. That distinguishes it from the shallower chara_maha/antar siblings by describing the level depth and method. It falls short of 5 because it never names the sibling alternatives it must be chosen over.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus astroway_vedic_dashas_chara_maha, _antar, _prana or _sookshma, nor any prerequisite such as requiring a birth chart first. The cascade structure implies a depth, but the agent must infer which level it should request.

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