divine_get_lal_kitab_mahadasha_content

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: no birth data is required, the output is textual Lal Kitab reading content, and there is a validation relationship with the antardasha tool. This helps an agent understand constraints and failure behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph adds only the necessary pairing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, the key context that no birth data is needed, and how to proceed for sub-period readings. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: maha_dasha lists the valid planet values and lan describes the language code with a default. The description's mention of 'named Mahadasha planet' reinforces which parameter drives the call but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets textual Lal Kitab interpretation for a Mahadasha period, and it explicitly names the Mahadasha planet. It also distinguishes itself from the antardasha sibling by stating it is for the main period, not the sub-period. The 'no birth data needed' note further clarifies its scope.

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 clearly says to pair this tool with divine_get_lal_kitab_antardasha_content for sub-period readings, which routes an agent to the correct sibling tool. It also gives a practical caveat that the antardasha must be valid for this mahadasha. It does not discuss broader alternatives such as divine_get_lal_kitab_dasha or analysis tools, but the primary usage decision is well covered.

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