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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's genuine addition is cost metadata (20 credits, Tier 2), which annotations do not carry, plus the level-depth disclosure. It says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits, but an output schema exists so return-format detail is not required.

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 level cascade before the group/cost tags. No padding, though it is arguably under-specified for the tool's complexity rather than genuinely concise.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and full annotations, most call mechanics are covered elsewhere. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the dense cluster of sibling dasha tools, which the description only hints at through 'MD → AD → 8 PDs'.

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 birth-data object is heavily documented (date/time formats, ayanamsa, timezone semantics, houseSystem letters). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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 a specific resource (Shodashottari Pratyantardasha) and pins its depth with '3-level cascade (MD → AD → 8 PDs)', which implicitly separates it from the maha/antar/prana/sookshma siblings. There is no verb, and it never names an alternative dasha system (vimshottari_pratyantar, ashtottari_pratyantar, etc.), so differentiation rests entirely on the level label.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when another dasha level or system would be the better call. With ~60 near-identical dasha siblings, the agent gets no routing help beyond the level count embedded in the purpose line.

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