Dashas: Dwadashottari Pratyantardasha

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses the proportional split rule and a non-obvious edge case: inside the birth mahadasha, sub-periods ending before birth are omitted and the running one starts at birth. It also gives endpoint and credit cost. Return structure is left to the output schema.

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?

The core explanation is two dense, front-loaded sentences, followed by clearly separated group, endpoint, and cost metadata. It is efficient, though the second sentence requires careful reading because it packs both the notional-start rule and the birth truncation into one clause.

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?

For a high-complexity dasha tool with a rich input schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key computation rule and birth edge case. The main remaining gap is explicit routing against the many sibling dasha levels.

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%, so the nested birth-data body is already well documented. The description adds meaning to targetDate by explaining that it selects the running period whose sub-periods are returned, but it adds little about the nested targetTime or targetTzOffset fields.

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 states a precise resource and depth: the 8 sub-periods of the running period at targetDate, 3 levels deep, split by the lords' years from the period's own lord. This is specific enough to distinguish a pratyantardasha query from a generic dasha query, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling antar, maha, prana, or sookshma levels.

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 implied by the targetDate and depth framing, and the birth-mahadasha rule tells the agent how the result is computed. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the sibling pratyantar systems or the antar/maha/prana/sookshma levels.

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