Yogini Dasha

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

Annotations already mark the call read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to clarify what the computation returns. It does so by noting the period-tree location (data.periods.root[]), output date format, and a link to the full output/error contract, with no contradicting side effects.

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 organized into focused sections (main computation, workflow, input contract, and do-not-confuse) and all sentences carry useful information. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

It covers the key output shape (two-level tree, data.periods.root[], DD/MM/YYYY strings) and provides a link to the full contract, which is sufficient when combined with the detailed input schema and presence of an output schema. It does not need to enumerate every return field because the full contract is referenced.

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 itself provides complete descriptions for the birth object, coordinates, date/time, ayanamsa, timezone, and response_format, so the description adds little parameter-level guidance. The 'BirthData follows the global contract' note is generic but not misleading; output-related notes do not improve parameter understanding.

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 opening sentence clearly states that this tool computes the eight-Yogini, 36-year Yogini Dasha cycle and describes the two-level period-tree output and DD/MM/YYYY boundary format. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the Vimshottari and Ashtottari dasha siblings, making the tool's 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 gives concrete workflow guidance ('BEFORE: recommended asterwise_get_natal_chart', 'AFTER: optional asterwise_get_dasha') and explicitly warns against confusing this tool with asterwise_get_dasha (Vimshottari) and asterwise_get_ashtottari_dasha (108-year system). This tells an agent when to use this tool and which sibling to choose otherwise.

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