Dashas: Panchottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description is not needed for the safety profile. It still adds real behavior: proportional splitting by the lords' years from the period's own lord, and the non-obvious birth-mahadasha rule where sub-periods ending before birth are dropped and the running one is anchored at birth. Cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint are also 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 substantive sentences followed by compact metadata tags; the core scope statement is front-loaded before the edge-case rule. The second sentence is long and clause-heavy, but every clause carries operational meaning rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Given that, the description supplies the two things an agent could not infer: the proportional split rule and the birth-mahadasha edge case. Minor gap: it never states explicitly which dasha level 'prana' occupies relative to the sibling levels.

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 only one top-level `body` parameter with thoroughly documented birth-data fields, so the schema carries the load. The description does add meaning to `targetDate` by defining it as the moment whose running period is resolved, which is more than the schema's bare date pattern, but it adds nothing about the optional targetTime/targetTzOffset fields.

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 a specific resource (Panchottari Pranadasha) and states precisely what is returned: the 7 sub-periods of the running period at `targetDate`, five levels deep. '5 levels deep' implicitly distinguishes it from the shallower maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation must be inferred from the depth phrase alone.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the prana-level (finest) view and should be chosen when five-level detail is wanted. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance and no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance about when the extra depth over sookshma is warranted.

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