Vimshottari Dasha

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by linking to the full output and error contract and warning about lagna-sensitive timing when birth time is unknown. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE sections, making it easy to scan. Some redundancy exists with the schema's parameter descriptions, but the separation of concerns is helpful and not excessive given the large number of sibling dasha tools.

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 covers before/after workflows, sibling-tool disambiguation, output date format, level-depth payload implications, and a link to the full output/error contract. For a complex astrological tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially alongside the detailed schema.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is high. The description adds valuable output-format context ('Response dates in periods[] use DD/MM/YYYY, not ISO') and reiterates important time-related caveats, but much of the parameter-level meaning is already captured in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Computes Vimshottari Dasha'), a clear resource ('from birth data'), and a concrete output ('returns hierarchical period trees plus current Maha/Antar interpretation blocks'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the recommended before-tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart), the after-tool (asterwise_get_dasha_transits), and the alternative dasha tools with their key differences. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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