divine_get_antar_dasha_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: no birth data is required and the result is a generic interpretation for the named Maha + Antar combination, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first line and a short clarifying note beneath it. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

Given the low complexity of three parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the return type, the generic nature of the response, and the absence of a birth-data requirement, leaving no critical gap.

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 already documents maha_dasha, antar_dasha, and lan with examples. The description only echoes the parameter relationship as 'Maha + Antar combination' without adding new value formats, constraints, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Get textual interpretation of an Antar Dasha (Maha→Antar) period.' It also notes the endpoint returns a generic interpretation for a named combination, which helps distinguish it from personalized birth-data-based dasha tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings like divine_get_pratyantar_dasha_analysis.

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?

The statement 'No birth data needed' gives a clear condition for using this endpoint, and 'generic interpretation' clarifies that it serves the non-personalized case. It doesn't name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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