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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the derivation rule ('recursive proportional split: parent_years × sub_planet_period / 100'), which explains how the returned periods are computed, but it says nothing about output shape, cost behavior beyond the tag, or error conditions.

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 that front-load the resource and level, plus compact group/cost tags. Nothing is padded, though the formula clause could be trimmed for a shorter reader-facing summary.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a 100%-documented input schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and computation, which it does. The main remaining gap is the absence of guidance on level selection relative to sibling dasha tools.

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 rich birth-data schema already documents date/time/lat/long, timezone and targetDate. The description only re-references `targetDate`, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 names the specific dasha system and level ('Shatabdika Antardasha') and states the output: 7 sub-periods of the running MD at targetDate. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling levels (maha, pratyantar, prana, sookshma), which share nearly identical wording.

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 statement of when to use this level versus the other Shatabdika granularities or other dasha families, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the implicit 'at targetDate' scoping, which is not framed as guidance.

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