Dashas: Panchottari Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the applicability flag `initial.applicable`, the navamsa/dwadashamsa reading, and that periods are returned regardless of applicability. It does not mention the 20-credit Tier 2 cost (that appears only in a metadata bracket) or any output-shape caveats.

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?

It is front-loaded with the system name and cycle length, then the lord-year allocation, then the applicability caveat. The astrological shorthand is dense but each clause carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, yet the description usefully flags the `initial.applicable` field and the lagna-amsha precondition. For a single-parameter, read-only computation with rich schema, this is essentially complete, missing only cross-references to deeper-level sibling 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 effectively a single `body` parameter whose nested fields are documented at length in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 system (Panchottari Dasha, 105-year cycle of 7 lords) and states what is computed (the mahadasha periods), with the classical BPHS derivation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling panchottari_antar/prana/pratyantar tools, so an agent must infer from the name that this returns only the top-level periods.

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 through the Cancer-lagna/Sun-amsha condition and the note that periods are computed either way, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for sub-periods use X' routing among the many dasha siblings. The agent gets context, not directives.

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