divine_get_varshphal_patyanini_dasha

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the input scope (year and birth data) and does not contradict the annotations, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as response format or edge behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple read-only retrieval tool, though it is sparse enough that it does not earn a 5.

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 input schema, output schema, and annotations collectively cover the mechanical requirements for invoking the tool. However, for a specialized Varshphal dasha among many similar sibling tools, the description would benefit from explaining what Patyanini Dasha is and when to prefer it over the other dasha options.

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 both varshphal_year and the full KundliInput are already well documented. The description merely restates 'given year and birth data' at a high level and adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Varshphal Patyanini Dasha' with the given year and birth data. It clearly identifies what the tool computes, but it does not differentiate Patyanini Dasha from the other Varshphal dasha siblings like mudda_dasha or yogini_dasha, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The sibling list contains several Varshphal dasha tools, but the description gives no exclusions, no conditions, and no mention of other similar tools, leaving the agent without a basis for selection.

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