Dashas: Shatabdika Antardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value annotations do not carry: the endpoint, a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, and the exact proportional split formula (parent_years × sub_planet_period / 100), which tells the agent how the seven periods are derived. It does not say what happens if targetDate falls outside the MD span.

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 tight sentences plus bracketed metadata lines; the purpose and formula are front-loaded with no filler. The metadata block is boilerplate but compact and genuinely useful for cost and routing.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the count of seven periods is stated. However, for a tool sitting inside a dense family of 200+ astro tools with five depth levels per dasha system, the absence of any routing guidance across levels leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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%, including a very detailed birth-data block, so baseline is 3. The description adds only that the computation is anchored at `targetDate`, a field the schema itself leaves undocumented, which is marginal added value.

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?

"Shatabdika Antardasha: 7 sub-periods of the running MD at targetDate" gives a concrete verb-less but specific output: seven antardasha sub-periods of the currently running mahadasha. It names the dasha system and the level, which distinguishes it from the ~20 other dasha siblings in name, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with astroway_vedic_dashas_shatabdika_pratyantar/prana/sookshma or the vimshottari equivalents.

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 statement of when to pick this level versus the maha/pratyantar/prana/sookshma variants of the same Shatabdika system, nor when to prefer Shatabdika over Vimshottari or the other schools. The only implicit cue is the formula, which presumes a parent MD is already known.

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