divine_get_varshphal_mudda_dasha

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the operation itself, but it also does not contradict the annotations. With annotations present, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it front-loads the core action. It is concise, but the vague parenthetical '(annual chart)' introduces a slight ambiguity that prevents a perfect score.

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?

Despite a rich input schema and output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain what 'Mudda Dasha' is, how it relates to other varshphal dasha tools, or what distinguishes this call from the many siblings. Given the complexity of the dasha system and the large sibling set, an agent would need more context to select and use this tool confidently.

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% – both varshphal_year and the nested KundliInput parameters have explicit descriptions (e.g., 'Year for the annual (varshphal) chart'). The tool description merely restates 'given year and birth data' without adding any new semantic detail. As per the high coverage baseline, this is a neutral 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a distinct resource ('Varshphal Mudda Dasha'), which is unique among the many varshphal and dasha sibling tools. However, the parenthetical '(annual chart)' is slightly imprecise because Mudda Dasha is a dasha system within the annual chart, not the chart itself, which may lead to mild confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as divine_get_varshphal_yogini_dasha or divine_get_vimshottari_dasha. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool among the many dasha-related tools in the sibling list.

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