Ashtottari Dasha

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

The description discloses key behavioral details: the output location (data.periods.root[]), date formatting (DD/MM/YYYY), depth semantics, and local validation of levels. It also links to the full output and error contract. The readOnly and idempotent annotations align with the described compute-and-return behavior, with no contradiction.

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 well-organized into workflow, input contract, and disambiguation sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., mentioning data.periods.root and DD/MM/YYYY twice), but the structure and clarity justify the length.

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?

Given the presence of nested objects and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies input constraints, output shape, date formats, related tools, and a link to the full contract. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand expected results.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters, including defaults, formats, and allowed values. The description adds useful context about level validation and the relationship to sibling tools, though it does not dramatically expand on the schema's already high 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 precisely states that the tool computes the 108-year Ashtottari Dasha tree with configurable depth and returns periods under data.periods.root. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from asterwise_get_dasha (Vimshottari) and asterwise_get_yogini_dasha, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 clear workflow guidance, recommending asterwise_get_natal_chart before use and asterwise_get_dasha for optional Vimshottari comparison. It also includes explicit 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' notes, which effectively tells an agent when to use this tool versus closely related siblings.

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