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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context: the default seed rule, the 12-sign/9-year MD structure, and the three antardasa seed options. It does not disclose cost/credit behavior, rate limits, or anything about the truncated 'children' output, which the output schema partly compensates for.

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-loads the tool identity but is dense jargon and, critically, is visibly truncated mid-sentence ('forward from …'), meaning the description itself is incomplete. The algorithmic detail is useful but not organized for scanning.

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. However, the description ends abruptly, omits any comparison to the four sibling Shoola levels, and leaves usage conditions unstated. Adequate for calling the tool, thin for choosing it.

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 high, but the schema gives no descriptions for houseIndex or antardasaSeedOption. The description supplies real semantics: houseIndex shifts the lagna anchor (1..12), and option 1/2/3 map to distinct seed rules, which is meaning an agent could not recover from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific system (Shoola Dasha, Jaimini "Trident" rasi-dasha) with the level implied by the name. It is clearly a dasha computation, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling levels (shoola_antar, shoola_prana, shoola_pratyantar, shoola_sookshma), so the agent must infer that 'maha' means the top-level mahadasha.

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?

The description explains the internal algorithm/defaults but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the sibling dasha-level tools. There is no statement of prerequisites (birth data already established) or of when the other Shoola levels are preferable.

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