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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that full=true is 'тяжёлый' (heavy/expensive) and that birth time is required, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how required birth data must be supplied. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 description is a single, front-loaded paragraph that conveys purpose, depth semantics, prerequisites, date-range behavior, the heavy full option, and the sibling alternative with no wasted words. The semicolon-separated structure keeps it dense but navigable.

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 11 parameters and low schema description coverage, the definition should do more to explain how to supply birth data and the remaining inputs. It does cover the critical usage context and the existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the gap on most parameters leaves it only minimally sufficient.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate for many undocumented parameters. It explains depth (1–3 mapping to maha/antar/pratyantar dasha), full, and from_date/to_date, but leaves date, time, place, geonameid, lang, and chart_id largely unexplained beyond their bare names or schema notes.

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 names the exact resource (Vimshottari dasha periods) and what it returns: the current period and what follows. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling life_events, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

It states the context for use ('какой идёт сейчас и что дальше'), explains the depth levels, notes birth time is required, tells how to query past years via from_date/to_date, warns that full=true is heavy, and explicitly redirects event-date queries to life_events. This is complete when/when-not guidance.

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