Dashas: Shoola Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-schema facts - the endpoint path and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost - but says nothing about the depth or structure of the returned cascade, which matters for a 5-level tool.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: one clause plus bracketed metadata with zero padding. It borders on under-specification, but the sentence- and bracket-level structure is clean and scannable.

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 needn't be explained, and cost/endpoint are supplied. What's missing is context an agent needs to place this within the five-level shoola family and understand what the prana level actually represents.

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 body schema documents birth data and the targetDate/antardasaSeedOption modifiers in detail, so the description does no parameter work. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 dasha system and level (Shoola Pranadasha, 'finest grain'), but it never states a verb+object like 'computes' or 'returns the prana-level periods.' 'Prana' and '5-level cascade' are domain shorthand that the agent must already understand to distinguish this from sibling shoola_sookshma or shoola_pratyantar.

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 guidance on when to choose this level versus the other four shoola siblings (maha, antar, pratyantar, sookshma, prana). Only the phrase 'finest grain' hints at the trade-off, leaving the choice to inference.

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