Dashas: Dwadashottari Antardasha

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: proportional splitting by lord years, and the edge case that inside the birth mahadasha sub-periods ending before birth are dropped and the running one is truncated to birth. It also discloses the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, though it says nothing about response shape or precision of the returned boundaries.

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 dense sentences that lead with the resource and level, followed by the proportional-split rule and the birth edge case, then a compact metadata block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title.

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, full schema coverage, and annotations present, the definition supplies what's missing: what the periods are, how they're split, and the birth-truncation caveat. Only a note on which dashas system/level to pick when several are plausible is absent, which is a minor gap given sibling names.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns the bump by pinning down what `targetDate` actually does — it selects the running period whose sub-periods are returned — rather than leaving it as an opaque date field. It adds nothing about targetTime/targetTzOffset, which the schema handles.

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 resource and scope: 'the 8 sub-periods of the running period at `targetDate`, 2 levels deep'. The phrase '2 levels deep' plus 'split in proportion to the lords' years' distinguishes it from the maha (one level) and pratyantar/sookshma/prana (deeper) siblings without needing the schema.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer it is the right call when it needs antardasha-level detail under Dwadashottari, but the description never says when to use this versus the maha or pratyantar variant, nor any prerequisite. The birth-mahadasha rule is behavioral, not routing guidance.

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