divine_get_maha_dasha_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns textual interpretation and covers specific life areas (career, health, relationships, finances), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the predictions are generic or personalized, or any limitations of the interpretation. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the key differentiator (no birth data needed). The second sentence lists the covered life areas. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage guidance.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the core purpose and life areas. However, given the large sibling set of dasha tools, it doesn't fully clarify how this differs from vimshottari_dasha, antar_dasha, or pratyantar_dasha. The 'no birth data needed' hint is helpful but not a complete differentiation. For a simple 2-param tool with full schema coverage, it's adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters. The description mentions 'Maha Dasha period' and 'named Maha Dasha' which aligns with the maha_dasha parameter, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. The lan parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it returns textual predictions for a Maha Dasha period covering career, health, relationships, and finances. It also notes that no birth data is needed, which helps distinguish it from other dasha tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling dasha tools like divine_get_antar_dasha_analysis or divine_get_vimshottari_dasha, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage: call this when you need a Maha Dasha interpretation without birth data. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like antar dasha or pratyantar dasha analysis, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'no birth data needed' hint provides some context, but the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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