Dashas: Shatabdika Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in annotations or schema: the cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint. It says nothing about output volume at five levels of cascade, which is the one behavioral trait an agent would most want to know.

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-loads the tool's identity in one sentence, then puts group, endpoint, and cost on clearly labelled lines. No filler, though the bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate rather than explanation.

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 and annotations cover safety, and the input schema is thoroughly self-documenting, so the description needn't carry return values or parameters. What's missing is the conceptual filler: what a prana-level dasha is for and how it differs from the sookshma level an agent might otherwise pick.

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 100% and the single body parameter is documented in exhaustive detail (timezone, ayanamsa, house system, rejection rules). The description adds no parameter meaning, 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?

Names the specific system (Shatabdika Pranadasha) and gives a differentiating scope note, '5-level cascade (finest grain)', which separates it from the shatabdika_maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings. It stops short of explaining what prana-level means to a non-Vedic reader, so an agent relies on the 'finest grain' gloss 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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling levels or of the required birth data. The only routing signal is the phrase 'finest grain', which implies a depth choice but never states it as an instruction.

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