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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts – group, endpoint, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost – but says nothing about output depth, computation cost implications, or failure modes beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the identifying clause and followed by metadata; nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably too sparse rather than too long, but every line earns its place.

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, and the input schema is exhaustive. Still, for a tool sitting among dozens of near-identical dasha endpoints, the description fails to explain what this level yields or why it would be chosen, leaving a routing gap the structured fields cannot close.

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 body (birth data, target date/time/tz), fields and precision parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

Names the specific dasha system (Ashtottari Pranadasha) and its position in the hierarchy ('5-level cascade, finest grain'), which distinguishes it from the coarser ashtottari_sookshma/pratyantar/antar/maha siblings. However, it has no verb at all (compute/return) and assumes the agent already knows what a pranadasha is. Clear but not fully self-contained.

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 guidance on when to select this tool versus the four other Ashtottari levels or the many other dasha systems. 'Finest grain' hints at granularity but never states a condition for choosing prana over sookshma or pratyantar, and no prerequisites (birth data requirement) are described.

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