Dashas: Ashtottari Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so safety needs no restating. The description does add useful non-schema context — cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint — plus the fact that the output is an 8-fold PD breakdown. It does not explain how targetDate/targetTime scope the returned periods.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives the tool's identity and output shape; the metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost) are compact and skimmable. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed metadata block is boilerplate rather than descriptive.

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?

With a fully documented schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey identity and output shape — which it does. The missing piece is routing guidance among the five Ashtottari dasha levels and the meaning of targetDate.

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 single 'body' parameter carries an extensive description of birth-data semantics, timezone handling and house-system encoding. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific dasha system (Ashtottari) and the exact subdivision level (Pratyantardasha) plus the cascade depth it returns (MD → AD → 8 PDs). An agent can distinguish it from the Maha/Antar tools by level, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this over astroway_vedic_dashas_ashtottari_maha, _antar, _sookshma or _prana, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a birth chart is required). The '3-level cascade' phrasing hints at granularity but never tells the agent how to choose.

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