divine_get_jaimini_chara_dasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the sign-based nature of the dasha system, which is useful, but it does not discuss output format, limitations, or side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the main purpose and then adding explanatory context. It is concise and well-structured, letting the agent grasp the essence quickly.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when it is appropriate. It highlights the rashi-based nature, distinguishing it from siblings, though it could be more explicit about differences from other dasha tools. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description fails to compensate for parameter meaning. While the schema itself has descriptions for each field, the tool description adds nothing to parameter understanding, so it scores low per the rubric.

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 states the tool gets Jaimini Chara Dasha periods for a birth chart, and explains the rashi-based system distinguishing it from other dasha tools like vimshottari or yogini. The verb, resource, and system are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides a brief usage context ('Excellent for timing events in Jaimini astrology') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other dasha tools, nor when not to use it. It implies a use case but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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