Dashas: Panchottari Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for genuine behavioral content the annotations cannot give: the proportional split rule and the birth-mahadasha handling (pre-birth sub-periods dropped, the running one truncated to birth). It does not, however, describe output shape or ordering, and the cost metadata is the only other disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and period definition, then the edge-case rule, then compact metadata lines for group, endpoint and cost. No filler sentences; the second sentence is dense but each clause carries a distinct rule. Slightly heavy for two sentences, which keeps it from 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed computation tool, this covers what an agent needs: what is computed, how it is split, the natal-chart special case, the credit cost, and the endpoint. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among the many Sookshma/Antar variants.

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 coverage is effectively 100% and the nested birth-data description already spells out date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone versus timezoneOffset, ayanamsa, and houseSystem. The description adds one genuine semantic point by tying `targetDate` to the selection of the running period. Beyond that it restates nothing new about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific resource (the 7 sub-periods of the running Panchottari period at targetDate) and a specific derivation rule (four levels deep, split proportionally to the lords' years from the period's own lord). The Panchottari/Sookshma names distinguish it from the antar/maha/prana/pratyantar siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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: the reference to 'the running period at targetDate' tells an agent the tool is date-anchored, and the birth-mahadasha caveat signals a natal-chart edge case. There is no explicit statement of when to choose Sookshma over Panchottari antar or prana, which given the dense family of same-prefix siblings is the missing piece.

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