Dashas: Chara Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the actual computation contract: direction rule (forward for movable/dual, reverse for fixed), per-sign duration formula, own-sign = 12 years, and the Scorpio/Aquarius co-lord tie-break, plus cost tier and endpoint. This is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

It is compact, but the opening is a parenthetical definition rather than a plain statement of what the call returns, and the majority of the text is computational minutiae (inclusive count minus 1, tie-break by absolute longitude) that most callers do not need to place the call. The information that matters for invocation is buried behind algorithm detail.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is fully annotated. What remains — routing among the very large family of dasha tools of the same system — is not addressed, but the computational behavior of this specific endpoint is documented unusually thoroughly.

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%: the nested body already documents date, time, lat/lon, timezone, ayanamsa, houseSystem and the rejects-invalid short forms. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own — not even the meaning of targetDate/targetTime for this endpoint — 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?

The opening clause defines the resource precisely ('Chara Dasha (Jaimini rasi-dasha: Mahadasha lord = sign, not planet)') and '12 Mahadashas of variable duration starting at lagna sign' scopes it to the maha level. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling dasha tools (chara_antar, chara_prana, jaimini_dasha_summary, vimshottari_maha), leaving the agent to infer the level from the name alone.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent note is 'Default variant = K.N.', which hints at configurable schools but never says how to select or what happens otherwise.

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