Dashas: Shodashottari Mahadasha

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds behaviour the annotations do not: the algorithm is a PyJHora port, and the hora/paksha condition does not block computation, which saves the agent from gating calls on eligibility. It stops short of describing how targetDate/targetTime are applied.

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 system identity, then cycle facts, then the eligibility caveat and algorithm provenance. The planet-duration sequence is dense but genuinely useful for interpreting output; nothing here is filler.

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 not be explained. What is missing is the level framing (mahadasha vs the four sub-level siblings) and how the optional target date influences the computed periods — for a tool in a large dasha family, that omission matters.

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?

The single body parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage with detailed birth-data and timezone/substitution rules, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable but neither compensates nor extends.

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 (Shodashottari), states it is a 116-year nakshatra dasha cycle, and gives the planetary sequence, seed nakshatra and nakshatra distribution. It does not state that this returns the first-level (mahadasha) periods while the antar/prana/pratyantar/sookshma siblings return sub-levels, so the differentiator rests on the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

The AmatyaKaraka applicability rule is given, but explicitly marked 'informational; dasha is computed regardless', so it is not a real gating condition. There is no guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling dasha tools (e.g. shodashottari_antar for sub-periods, vimshottari_maha as the more common system).

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