Dashas: Dwadashottari Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description goes further by explaining the proportional splitting rule and the birth-mahadasha edge case — sub-periods that ended before birth are omitted and the running one is clipped to birth. That is real behavioral disclosure an agent could not get from annotations or 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by one caveat sentence that earns its place. The proportional-split phrasing is dense but not padded; only minor tightening is possible.

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 present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus a richly described body schema carry most of the load. The description supplies the counting/clipping rule and the endpoint and credit cost, leaving little an agent would still need to call it correctly.

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 birth data and target fields are already documented. The description adds modest meaning by stating that `targetDate` selects the currently running period, but it says nothing about `targetTime`/`targetTzOffset` or how they interact with the date. Baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names the specific dasha and level: the 8 sookshma sub-periods of the running period at `targetDate`, four levels deep. That is a concrete verb+resource, and the depth is enough to tell it apart from the antar/pratyantar/prana siblings, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'the running period at `targetDate`' implicitly tells the agent this is a point-in-time drill-down, and '4 levels deep' hints at the depth relative to siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named, so guidance stays implied.

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