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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description does add cost ('20 credits, Tier 2') and the concrete endpoint, which are genuinely useful and not present in structured fields, but it says nothing about what the cascade returns or any compute/rate behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the technique name and then metadata. Nothing is padded, and the reader reaches the endpoint and cost immediately.

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?

Output schema exists and the input schema is rich, but for an agent choosing among dozens of near-identical dasha endpoints the description never explains what a '3-level cascade' produces or why this depth is chosen. The technique-specific context that would justify selecting it 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%, and the nested birth-data schema documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone handling, houseSystem letters and the ayanamsa enum in detail, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 restates the tool name ('Sthira Pratyantardasha: 3-level cascade') without a specific verb or resource explanation, and gives no way to tell it apart from the sibling levels sthira_maha, sthira_antar, sthira_prana and sthira_sookshma. '3-level cascade' hints at the depth layer but is not defined anywhere.

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, what condition selects it over the other Sthira or Vimshottari dasha depths, or what prerequisites it has. The only routing signal is the surrounding '[Group: Vedic]' tag, which is taxonomy, not guidance.

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