Dashas: Shodashottari Antardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavioral context — the fixed count of 8 sub-periods and the recursive proportional split formula — but says nothing about response shape, precision, or edge cases like a targetDate outside the current MD.

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 compact sentences with the core result front-loaded, followed by the dividing formula. Group/endpoint/cost metadata is terse and adds no noise.

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?

With a rich input schema, a full output schema, and safety annotations, most agent needs are met. The remaining gap is the absence of any pointer to sibling dasha depths, which matters because this family of tools has near-identical names.

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%, so the birth-data fields and targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes targetDate and does not add usage meaning beyond the structured fields, 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?

The description names a specific Vedic dasha division (Shodashottari Antardasha) and states precisely what it returns: 8 sub-periods of the running mahadasha at targetDate. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling depth levels such as shodashottari_pratyantar, prana, or maha, leaving the agent to infer the hierarchy.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (maha/pratyantar/prana/sookshma or other dasha systems) that an agent would need to choose between. Usage is only implied by the name and the '8 sub-periods' detail.

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