Dashas: Shodashottari Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's main added value is the endpoint and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, plus the structural hint that each AD yields 8 PDs. It says nothing about whether targetDate/targetTime are needed for a specific window, or what the periods are keyed to.

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?

One substantive sentence front-loads the calculation and its cascade depth; the remaining lines are compact, useful metadata (group, endpoint, cost) rather than prose padding. Nothing is wasted.

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 schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it adequately conveys what is computed. It falls short on the things an agent must decide before calling: which dasha-level tool to choose and whether targetDate/targetTime are needed to scope the requested periods.

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 nested body schema documents birth data, timezone handling, and the optional targetDate/targetTime precisely. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level, but it also never hints that the target-date parameters exist.

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 the specific dasha system (Shodashottari) and level (Pratyantardasha) and states the output shape: a 3-level cascade MD → AD → 8 PDs. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling levels (shodashottari_antar, sookshma, prana) or from the same PD level in other systems, so an agent must infer the difference from the name 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?

There is no statement of when to pick the pratyantar level rather than antar (coarser) or sookshma/prana (finer), and no mention of the parallel Vimshottari/Yogini/Ashtottari pratyantar tools. Usage is only implied by the level name.

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