Dashas: Shatabdika Sookshmadasha

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 genuinely useful operational context the annotations do not carry: the POST endpoint and a 20-credit (Tier 2) cost, which matters for budgeting. It stops short of describing what the cascade returns or how deep it goes.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the identifying line comes first, then bracketed metadata. Nothing is padded, though the metadata lines consume most of a very short description and leave little room for actual semantic content.

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 the input schema is self-documenting, so return format and parameter detail are not required here. The remaining gap is disambiguation across four sibling depth levels of the same dasha system, which the description does not resolve.

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 the body schema is unusually thorough (coordinate validation, timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence, houseSystem letter casing). The description adds nothing about the parameters, 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?

Names the specific dasha system and depth ("Shatabdika Sookshmadasha: 4-level cascade"), which does convey something about output granularity. But against siblings shatabdika_maha/antar/pratyantar/prana, the description never explains the level hierarchy, so an agent cannot tell from the text which of the five variants to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over the other shatabdika depth variants, and no note that a birth chart must already be supplied for the dasha to be computed. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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