Dashas: Dwadashottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuine behavioral detail: proportional splitting by the lords' years from the period's own lord, and the birth-mahadasha edge case where sub-periods ending before birth are dropped and the running one starts at birth. The endpoint and 20-credit cost are also disclosed, which the annotations do not carry.

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 but front-loaded sentences: the first defines the output, the second qualifies the birth-time edge case. The metadata block (group, endpoint, cost) is compact and useful; nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is syntactically heavy.

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 structure need not be described, and the description supplies the level count, split rule, and birth-period handling. The main remaining gap is how targetDate interacts with a period that has ended or lies outside the running sequence, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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%, including detailed descriptions for targetDate, targetTime and targetTzOffset, so the baseline is 3. The description references `targetDate` by name and explains that the running period is taken at that date, which ties the parameter to the output, but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.

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 depth: 'the 8 sub-periods of the running period at targetDate, 5 levels deep', which pins down both scope and granularity. The level name 'Pranadasha' implicitly distinguishes it from the maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings, but the description never explicitly says so, leaving the agent to infer the hierarchy.

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?

The description implies usage through 'the running period at targetDate' but never states when to choose prana depth over antar or sookshma, nor any preconditions or exclusions. No alternatives are named despite the large sibling family with parallel dashas and levels.

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