divine_get_vimshottari_dasha

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the drill-down hierarchy, the parent-planet requirement for deeper granularities, and the fact that this tool returns periods rather than prose interpretations. This is useful behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured: purpose first, then parameter usage, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With a full input schema, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: granularity selection, parent-planet requirements, and how to get prose interpretation from sibling tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `dasha_type` controls the drill-down from Maha to Deha and that Prana/Deha require parent planet(s) in `maha_dasha` and `antar_dasha`. This helps an agent understand the relationship between parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Vimshottari Dasha periods for a birth chart at the requested granularity.' It also distinguishes this tool from sibling dasha tools by calling Vimshottari 'the most widely used dasha system' and by naming the granularity levels. This lets an agent understand exactly what this tool computes.

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 gives explicit guidance: pick `dasha_type` to drill from Maha down to Deha, and for Prana/Deha specify parent planets. It also names the exact sibling tools to use instead when the goal is prose interpretation, noting those need no birth data. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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