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 adds genuinely useful operational context in the [Cost: 20 credits (Tier 2)] tag, but says nothing about the shape/nature of the result or any rate or permission constraints.

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, fully front-loaded, with the dasha structure stated first and metadata tags after. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of usage guidance rather than earning extra credit.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is light. Still, for a specialized dasha tool sitting among four sibling levels, the absence of any guidance on level selection leaves a real gap.

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 body schema is deeply documented, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantics for body, fields, or precision; 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Tribhagi Pratyantardasha: 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 9 PDs)'. An agent can tell this is the pratyantar level of the Tribhagi dasha system. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling levels (_maha, _antar, _prana, _sookshma), so the distinction relies on the agent already knowing dasha hierarchy.

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, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. The description only says what the tool computes, leaving the agent to infer when this level is preferable to astroway_vedic_dashas_tribhagi_antar or _prana.

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