Dashas: Ashtottari Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — Ketu exclusion, block-based nakshatra mapping, and the BPHS 46.23 applicability rule (day Krishna OR night Shukla), plus cost tier. However it does not say how the returned periods are bounded in time or how the targetDate affects the result.

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 technical core is front-loaded in three dense sentences, followed by a compact Group/Endpoint/Cost block. The nakshatra block counts (4-3-4-3-3-3-4-3) are arguably unnecessary for tool selection, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the input schema is fully annotated. What an agent still lacks is level routing (maha vs antar) and how targetDate/targetTime change the output — the only remaining gaps for a calculation tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the body schema is exhaustively documented (timezone versus timezoneOffset, ayanamsa naming, rejected short forms, houseSystem letters). The description correctly stays out of parameter territory rather than duplicating it, leaving only the base schema to carry that weight.

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 names the specific system (108-year Ashtottari, Ardradi tradition), enumerates the eight planets with their year periods, and states the nakshatra mapping — enough to distinguish it from the Vimshottari/Yogini/Chara siblings. It never explicitly says it returns the mahadasha-level period sequence, relying on the tool name and the '108y total' to imply the level.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the four other Ashtottari levels (antar, pratyantar, sookshma, prana) or the other dasha systems. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as needing full birth data. The routing decision is left entirely to inference from the name.

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