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 a genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in annotations: cost of 20 credits (Tier 2). It does not describe response shape, pagination, or computational limits, but with annotations carrying safety this earns a 3.

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?

The definition is short and front-loaded, with no rambling. However, the first line merely repeats the title and the bracketed Group/Endpoint lines are largely redundant with the tool name, so the brevity reflects missing substance rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a domain-specific tool with a dense nested schema (birth data plus target date/time/house/seed options) and numerous near-identical dasha siblings, the description provides no interpretive help at all. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the absence of any explanation of the dasha level or how to choose it leaves the definition incomplete.

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 schema itself documents body, fields, and precision in detail. The description adds nothing about parameters — no mention of birth data, targetDate, houseIndex, or the antardasaSeedOption seed. Baseline 3 applies 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 description's core is 'Shoola Pratyantardasha: 3-level cascade', which essentially restates the tool name and title rather than stating what the tool produces. The '3-level cascade' phrase hints at output depth, but it does not explain the level hierarchy in a way that lets an agent distinguish this from siblings such as shoola_maha, shoola_antar, or shoola_prana.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling dasha levels (maha/antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma) or versus other dasha systems (vimshottari, yogini, chara, etc.). The only context is 'Group: Vedic' and the endpoint path, which is routing metadata rather than usage guidance.

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