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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behaviour is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2), the Vedic group membership, and the algorithmic provenance (PyJHora sataatbika.py, BPHS Adhyaya 46) which signals reproducibility. It does not describe output shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with what the dasha is, then the sequence and distribution in compact notation, then provenance, then bracketed group/cost tags. Nothing is padded, though the sequence/period arithmetic is more detail than an agent needs to select the tool.

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 a full output schema and a 100%-documented input schema, the core gaps are closed. What remains missing is routing context in a family of ~50 dasha endpoints: whether this returns the full Mahadasha timeline, whether targetDate matters here, and how it relates to the antar/pratyantar/prana siblings.

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 nested birth-data schema is exhaustively documented (date/time formats, rejected short forms, timezone handling, houseSystem letters). The description adds nothing about body, fields or precision, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does all the work.

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 name, title and description together identify a specific calculation: the Shatabdika (100-year nakshatra) Mahadasha cycle, with its planet sequence, periods and seeding nakshatra spelled out. It is clearly not the same system as vimshottari or yogini. However, it never states the output level explicitly nor distinguishes itself from the sibling shatabdika_antar/pratyantar/sookshma/prana tools beyond the 'maha' in its name, so the agent must infer the granularity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of the many alternative dasha systems offered as siblings. The description is purely descriptive of the dasha mechanics; it gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over shatabdika_antar or any other dasha Mahadasha tool.

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