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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations do not carry — the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the cascade depth — but says nothing about output shape, computation basis, or any preconditions beyond the birth data the schema already demands.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the resource and its cascade, followed by group and cost metadata. Nothing is padded, though the terseness comes at the cost of omitting selection guidance rather than from efficient compression.

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?

The input schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a tool sitting in a dense family of near-identical dasha/level variants, the description gives no differentiation or selection context, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the tool name.

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/fields/precision parameters are each documented in the schema (including the ayanamsa, timezone and houseSystem conventions). The description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics is appropriate.

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?

Names the specific resource (Shatabdika Pratyantardasha) and adds real structure — '3-level cascade (MD → AD → 7 PDs)' — which tells the agent this is the third dasha level with 7 PDs under each AD, distinguishing it in depth from the shatabdika_antar/maha siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb (compute/return) and never states what the output represents, so it is clear but not fully self-explanatory.

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 at all. With ~10 sibling dasha systems each exposing maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma/prana levels, the description never says when to select pratyantar over antar or sookshma, nor when Shatabdika is preferred over Vimshottari or Yogini. The level is only inferable from the name.

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