Dashas: Chara Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely behavioral context beyond them: the POST endpoint and the cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which matters for budget decisions. It says nothing, however, about output volume for a 4-level cascade, which is the main operational risk.

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?

Four short lines with no filler; the group, endpoint and cost lines each carry usable information. The opening line is a partial restatement of the title, but it is compact and front-loaded rather than padded.

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?

This is a specialized Vedic dasha computation with four sibling levels and a nested body containing target-date fields, and the description explains none of it. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but what 'sookshma' means, how the target date interacts with the birth date, and how this differs from the other chara variants are all left unstated.

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?

There is one 'body' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining date/time formats, timezone handling, ayanamsa and houseSystem in detail. The description adds nothing about the body fields, in particular the targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset block, so the schema-only baseline of 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 technique (Chara Sookshmadasha) and gives one structural fact, '4-level cascade'. That is a bit more than a restatement of the tool name, but 'cascade' is never unpacked into what it actually returns (four nested dasha levels of Jaimini Chara periods). Against siblings like chara_antar, chara_prana and chara_pratyantar, the agent gets only an implicit level hint rather than an explicit differentiation.

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 call this rather than chara_maha, chara_antar, chara_pratyantar or chara_prana, and no mention of the targetDate/targetTime targeting scenario that would distinguish a sookshma request. The agent must infer level semantics from the tool name alone.

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