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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the default computational branches, which materially affect what comes back. It still says nothing about response size or pagination.

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 the identity of the dasha before the algorithm, and the appended group/endpoint/cost block is a tight metadata footer. The notation (`stronger_rasi(asc, asc+6)`) is dense and never defined, which costs a little readability but not length.

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 algorithm and defaults are well covered. However the targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset inputs are never mentioned in the schema properties or the description, so an agent cannot tell whether they trigger a 'current period at this date' computation or are ignored.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema cannot: the schema only shows `antardasaSeedOption` as const 1/2/3, while the description defines option 1 = sign of lord(parent), option 2 = stronger_rasi of parent vs parent+6, option 3 = sign of lord(stronger). It likewise explains that `houseIndex` shifts the lagna anchor rather than merely ranging 1..12.

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 and scope: Shoola Dasha as a Jaimini 'Trident' rasi-dasha, and 'MD' plus '12 signs forward, 9 years each' pins it to the mahadasha level. It is clear enough to separate this from the other 50+ dasha tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with its own shoola_antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings or states the output shape in task terms.

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 and no routing to alternatives. The defaults discussed (`houseIndex=1`, `option=2`) are parameter behaviour, not selection criteria, so an agent must infer from the tool name alone whether to call this versus shoola_antar or shoola_pratyantar.

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