Char Dasha

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful context about output format and date formatting but does not disclose additional behavioral side effects or limitations 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 well-structured with sections for workflow, input contract, and disambiguation. However, the date format distinction is repeated in both the 'INPUT CONTRACT' and 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' sections, adding slight redundancy.

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 description summarizes the output content, mentions the output format options, provides workflow context, and references the full output and error contract URL. Combined with the detailed schema, an agent has sufficient information to call this tool correctly.

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 schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what is already in the input schema. The note about data.periods[] using YYYY-MM-DD is output-related rather than an input parameter clarification.

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 explicitly states the tool computes Char Dasha and returns sign lords as period rulers with ISO-dated Maha and Antar sequences plus karaka mappings. It also distinguishes itself from Vimshottari and Yogini dasha tools, so an agent can clearly identify when to choose this tool.

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 explicit workflow guidance: natal chart is recommended before, and Vimshottari dasha is noted as an optional cross-check after. It also clarifies the date format difference versus asterwise_get_dasha and warns against confusing it with the Vimshottari and Yogini tools.

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