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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add non-schema behavioral context — the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the Vedic group tag — which is genuinely useful for budgeting, but it says nothing about what is computed or returned.

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?

It is two short lines with no filler and the technique name is front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient density — the cost/group tags are the only content beyond the title restatement.

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 and the input schema is richly documented, so return values and parameter mechanics need not be explained here. What is missing is routing context: this is one of five near-identical Sthira dasha tools differing only by level, and the description gives no basis for choosing among them.

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 nested body schema is extremely detailed about birth data, timezone handling and houseSystem, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the correct baseline of 3 when coverage is complete.

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 the specific technique (Sthira Pratyantardasha) and adds '3-level cascade', which does convey the subdivision depth and implicitly distinguishes it from the sthira_maha/antar/sookshma/prana siblings. However, it never states a verb or what is actually produced, so it largely restates the title plus one technical clause rather than describing an operation.

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 at all: nothing says when to pick this third-level Sthira dasha over sthira_maha, sthira_antar, sthira_sookshma or sthira_prana, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named. The agent must infer selection purely from the '3-level' phrase in the name.

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