Dashas: Ashtottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new information: the endpoint and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for an agent budgeting calls. It still says nothing about latency, output depth, or what the five levels contain.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: one semantic sentence followed by structured group/endpoint/cost metadata. No waste, though the brevity comes at the cost of guidance rather than being economical with rich content.

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 and annotations cover safety, but for a niche tool with four near-identical sibling levels and a dozen other dasha systems, the description should explain what the prana cascade yields and when it is the right level. As written, an agent cannot confidently choose it over astroway_vedic_dashas_ashtottari_sookshma.

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 nested body schema richly documents birth data, timezone handling, ayanamsa and house system. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 technique (Ashtottari Pranadasha) and characterizes it as a '5-level cascade (finest grain)', which hints at its place among the sibling dasha levels. However, it uses unexplained jargon without stating what the tool actually computes or returns, and it never names the alternatives (maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma) it sits beside.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. 'Finest grain' implies a use case only if the agent already knows the Ashtottari hierarchy; nothing tells it when to pick prana over sookshma or pratyantar.

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