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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the default-date behavior, which are genuinely useful. It does not describe output shape or how 'running' periods are derived, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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 front-loaded sentences that explain what it returns and how it differs from the dedicated endpoints, plus compact group/cost tags. No filler, though the credit tag is metadata rather than description prose.

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 annotations, a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description needs only to establish identity, scope and routing, all of which it does. Minor gaps remain about interpretation of the three simultaneous running periods, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that targetDate defaults to now, which the schema does not state (no default on targetDate), giving modest extra value beyond structured fields.

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 verb and resource: returns the running Mahadasha for Chara, Sthira and Shoola. It explicitly contrasts itself with the three dedicated /dashas/{chara,sthira,shoola}/maha siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context: this is the convenience aggregate to use when you want all three running periods in one call rather than three separate calls to the dedicated endpoints. No explicit when-not or credit-vs-three-calls tradeoff guidance, but routing is unambiguous.

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