Dashas: Kalachakra Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior the annotations cannot supply — that recursion preserves the natal chakra-row and paramayu — plus a cost signal of 20 credits (Tier 2), which is directly useful for deciding whether to call it. No details on response size or period boundaries are given, but an output schema exists.

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 substantive content is two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The bracketed Group/Endpoint/Cost lines are template metadata, but the cost line carries real decision value, so the total length is justified.

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 read-only computed-chart endpoint with a rich input schema, an output schema, and full annotations, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: what level of the dasha tree is returned and the credit cost. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single nested body parameter, the schema already documents birth data, timezone handling, ayanamsa, and house system in depth. The description contributes nothing about the targetDate/targetTime fields that gate the pratyantar lookup, so it earns baseline rather than extra credit.

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 names the specific dasha system and level (Kalachakra Pratyantardasha) and quantifies its output structure as a '3-level cascade (MD → AD → 9 PDs)', which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling kalachakra_maha/antar/prana/sookshma variants by depth. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 explicit 'use this when' or 'don't use this when', and none of the sibling dasha tools are named as alternatives. The '3-level cascade' phrasing implies this is the pratyantar-depth query rather than maha or sookshma, which is enough to infer usage but leaves the agent to reason about which depth to request.

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