Dashas: Shoola Mahadasha

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real substance — the exact seed rule, the 9-year MD length, the default antara seed and how children split. It also discloses cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and the POST endpoint, which the annotations do not.

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-loads the identity of the dasha before the algorithm details, then appends group, endpoint and cost in a compact block. It is dense with domain jargon and slightly run-on, but no sentence is expendable.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a computational tool the description omits how the target* parameters affect the result and gives no guidance on which of the sibling dasha tools to choose, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: houseIndex defaults to 1 and can be 1..12 to shift the lagna anchor, and antardasaSeedOption's bare enum constants 1/2/3 are given concrete meaning. Gaps remain for targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 (Shoola Dasha), identifies it as a Jaimini 'Trident' rasi-dasha, and states the mechanics (seed rasi, 12 signs forward, 9 years each), so an agent knows exactly what gets computed. It never names a sibling, though — the many shoola_antar/pratyantar/prana/sookshma tools go undifferentiated, and there is no leading verb such as 'compute' or 'return'.

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 text explains internal algorithm options (houseIndex, antara seed option 1/2/3) but never says when to call this versus the sub-period siblings or other dasha systems such as vimshottari_maha or chara_maha. The agent is left to infer selection from the name alone.

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