Dashas: Chara Antardasha

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description spends its space on genuine domain behavior the annotations cannot convey: the equal-share arithmetic (parent_years / 12) and the ordering convention (parent's next sign first, parent sign last, per K.N. Rao). It also discloses the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which affects whether an agent calls it. It stops short of noting whether targetDate outside the running Mahadasha is an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the arithmetic rule, then the ordering convention, all in compact technical prose with no filler. The Group/Endpoint/Cost metadata lines are boilerplate but short and genuinely informative for cost-aware agents.

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 required birth-data body is fully covered by the schema. The description adequately frames what the call computes. The remaining gap is hierarchy guidance: which dasha-level tool to call before or after this one in the chara family.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested birth-data block is documented in detail, so the bar is a baseline 3. The description clears it slightly by supplying the one thing the schema lacks: targetDate is evaluated against the running Mahadasha and defaults to today UTC. targetTime and targetTzOffset remain unaddressed in both places.

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 verb-and-resource pair: it returns the 12 Chara Antardasha sub-periods of the running Mahadasha evaluated at targetDate. The scope ('12 sub-periods', 'equal-share subdivision') is precise enough to distinguish it from a Mahadasha listing, though no sibling (chara_maha, chara_pratyantar, chara_sookshma) is named so the level hierarchy must be inferred.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'of the running Mahadasha at targetDate (default today UTC)' tells the agent this is a second-level breakdown evaluated at a chosen moment, and the default makes the common call easy. But it never states when to choose antar over pratyantar/sookshma, nor whether the parent Mahadasha must be fetched first via chara_maha, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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