Dashas: Chara Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — cost of 20 credits (Tier 2) and the POST endpoint — plus the 'recursive equal-share subdivision; same direction at every depth' computation rule. It stops short of saying what the response contains (period boundaries, dates) or that a target date/time is needed to anchor the PD sequence.

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 front-loaded sentences state the technique and the subdivision rule, followed by compact metadata lines. Nothing is padded, though the metadata block consumes roughly half the text budget and could be trimmed by an agent-neutral author.

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 needn't be explained, and the required birth data is documented in the schema. What is missing is the meaning of the target date/time window and any hint about the period range returned — enough gaps that an agent could call it with correct shapes but wrong expectations.

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 reported at 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden for the required 'body' birth-data object, and the baseline is 3. However, targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset in the schema have no descriptions at all, and the tool description does nothing to explain that these select the window for the pratyantar sequence — a missed opportunity rather than a failure.

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 a specific technique (Chara Pratyantardasha) and states its depth as a '3-level cascade (MD → AD → 12 PDs)'. That depth statement distinguishes it in principle from chara_maha/chara_antar/chara_prana siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly to say which one to pick instead.

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 about when to reach for the pratyantar level versus the antar, prana or sookshma variants of Chara dasha, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only routing information is the '[Group: Vedic]' tag and the credit tier.

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