Dashas: Chara Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context in the cost line (20 credits, Tier 2), but says nothing about return granularity, compute load, or the role of targetDate/targetTime.

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?

Two short fragments plus metadata lines, front-loaded with the system name. Nothing is padded, though the '5-level cascade' phrasing could have been made unambiguous at no extra length.

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 explained, and the input schema is fully documented. Still missing is the key selection context for a dasha-level tool: how deep the response goes and why an agent would pick prana over 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 body schema documents date/time/coords, ayanamsa, timezone and houseSystem in detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; 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 dasha (Chara Pranadasha) and its position as the finest of a 5-level cascade with minute-scale periods, which implicitly distinguishes it from the coarser chara_maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly and leaves slightly ambiguous whether all five levels are returned or only the prana 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the coarser Chara dasha siblings, no prerequisites, and no statement of what kind of question warrants minute-scale timing. 'At full depth' hints at depth of computation but does not route the agent anywhere.

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