Dashas: Kalachakra Mahadasha

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 still adds substantive behavioral context: direction is set by nakshatra group, total cycle length varies by natal pada (100/85/83/86 years), and the first Mahadasha is truncated by elapsed pada-fraction. That last detail is exactly the kind of output-shape quirk an agent would otherwise misread.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the defining trait, then mechanics, then return shape. Dense Vedic jargon (rasi-dasha, Savya/Apasavya, paramayu) is unavoidable but each sentence carries new information; the bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines sit cleanly at the end.

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 and the input schema is thoroughly documented, so the description's remaining burden is modest. It covers the return scope and the truncation rule; only the absence of explicit sibling-routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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% and the nested birth-data schema is unusually explicit (formats, rejected short forms, timezone handling), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion that results are pada-dependent, which tells the agent the birth time precision matters, an interpretive hint not present in the field docs.

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 computation and result: 9 Mahadashas of the running Kalachakra cycle from birth, with the defining trait that lords are signs rather than planets. The name-level distinction from sibling dasha tools (kalachakra_antar/pratyantar/sookshma) is reinforced by explicitly scoping output to the Mahadasha level.

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 makes clear what it computes but never states when to pick it over the sibling sub-period tools (kalachakra_antar, kalachakra_prana) or over other dasha systems like vimshottari_maha. Usage is only implied by the 'Maha' granularity and the cycle-length note.

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