Dashas: Shoola Antardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the POST endpoint and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which lets an agent budget calls. It says nothing about the response, but an output schema exists.

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 followed by bracketed metadata tags; front-loaded and waste-free. The [Group]/[Endpoint]/[Cost] scaffolding is boilerplate but carries actionable cost information, so it earns its place.

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 and rich nested birth-data schema carry most of the load, and cost/endpoint are disclosed. However, for a specialized Jyotish dasha endpoint the unexplained seed option and the absence of any note on what an 'antar' period returns leave a real gap for an agent choosing arguments.

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 documents date/time/coords/ayanamsa/timezone thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description names `targetDate` and `antardasaSeedOption`, but the three seed values (1/2/3) are the one genuinely opaque field in both schema and description — the agent has no way to know how to choose between them.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: Shoola Antardasha, the sub-periods of the running mahadasha at `targetDate`. The antar level is distinguishable from the sibling shoola_maha/pratyantar/sookshma/prana series by the word 'sub-periods', though the description never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'sub-periods of running MD' — an agent can infer this is the second-level dasha drill-down, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need antar-level timing rather than pratyantar or maha' routing despite five closely related shoola siblings in the tool list.

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