Dashas: Kalachakra Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the credit cost (20, Tier 2) and the endpoint, which are useful for budget-aware planning, but says nothing about output volume, latency, or how targetDate/targetTime affect the computation.

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?

One short sentence plus three bracketed metadata lines; the defining characteristic (finest grain, minutes scale) is front-loaded with zero filler. The endpoint and group tags are arguably redundant with the tool name, but they cost little space.

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 annotations cover safety, so the missing pieces are not fatal. However, for a deep 5-level dasha computation costing 20 credits, the description gives no hint about what a response contains at prana granularity or how far the target window is projected, which leaves an agent under-informed about result scope.

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 object, timezone handling and houseSystem conventions are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset fields that distinguish this prana-level query from a static natal lookup, leaving baseline 3 appropriate.

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 technique (Kalachakra Pranadasha) and characterizes it as the 5-level cascade at the finest grain, minutes-scale, which effectively distinguishes it from the shallower kalachakra maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the hierarchy from the parenthetical.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite of a natal chart, and no pointer to the shallower Kalachakra levels as alternatives. The only routing cues are the group tag and the 20-credit cost, both of which must be inferred rather than stated as a selection rule.

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