Dashas: Panchottari Antardasha

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), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: proportional splitting by the lords' years measured from the period's own lord, and the birth-mahadasha edge case where pre-birth sub-periods are dropped and the running one starts at birth. It does not discuss ordering or whether the full 7 are always returned, but the substantive semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the split rule, followed by the exception case. The birth-mahadasha sentence is dense but every clause carries information an agent could not get from the schema.

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 and a fully documented input schema, the description need only explain the computational semantics, which it does including the non-obvious birth edge case. The main residual gap is the absence of explicit level-routing guidance among the many sibling dasha tools.

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 there is a single `body` parameter, so the schema already carries the birth-data and target-date documentation. The description adds only the role of `targetDate` as the anchor for 'the running period', which is marginal beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Panchottari), the level (Antardasha), the count (7 sub-periods), the depth (2 levels) and the anchor (`targetDate`), which is far more than a restatement of the title. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the maha/pratyantar/prana/sookshma siblings, leaving the level distinction to be inferred from '2 levels deep'.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this when you need the antardasha breakdown at a given date. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. maha for the top level, pratyantar for the third level), so routing between the many sibling levels is left to the reader.

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