Dashas: Sthira Pranadasha

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real operational context an agent cannot get elsewhere – the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the POST endpoint – but says nothing about response depth, period structure, or limits.

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 front-loaded clause about the technique, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. No filler, though the metadata lines are boilerplate rather than descriptive value.

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 input schema fully documents the request. Given that, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the technique's nature, its cost tier, and its endpoint.

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%: the single body parameter is documented in extensive detail (date/time formats, coordinate order, timezone handling, house system letters, rejection of short field names). The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 technique (Sthira Pranadasha) and its defining property: a 5-level cascade at the finest grain. That partly distinguishes it from the sthira_maha/antar/pratyantar/sookshma siblings by depth, though it never names them or explicitly says it is the deepest level.

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 'finest grain' – an agent can infer it is for the most granular timing work, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the coarser sthira siblings.

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