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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the credit cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the '3-level cascade' scope hint. It does not, however, disclose any input prerequisites (birth data required) or what the cascade output looks like.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision: two lines leave the agent with almost nothing beyond the title and metadata tags.

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-value explanation is not required. But for a specialized multi-level dasha calculation in a field crowded with near-identical siblings, the definition omits both selection guidance and a description of the cascade depth/lords, leaving a real gap for correct tool routing.

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%, so the rich body schema already documents date, time, coordinates, ayanamsa, timezone, plus targetDate/targetTime/houseIndex/antardasaSeedOption. The description contributes nothing about parameters, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 definition names the specific dasha (Shoola Pratyantardasha) and adds the phrase '3-level cascade', which hints at the depth of the lord stack. However, it gives no indication of what a Shoola pratyantardasha response contains or how it differs from the many sibling tools (shoola_maha, shoola_antar, shoola_prana, shoola_sookshma, or Vimshottari variants). Purpose is identifiable but not well differentiated.

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 is present. With four sibling Shoola levels and dozens of other dasha systems in the tool list, the description never says when to pick pratyantar over maha/antar/prana/sookshma, or when Shoola is preferred over Vimshottari/Ashtottari.

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