Dashas: Sthira Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in annotations: the 20-credit Tier 2 cost and the POST endpoint. It says nothing about what the cascade output contains or how deep the three levels go.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the defining phrase comes first, followed by group, endpoint and cost. No sentence is wasted, though the bracketed metadata block reads as raw annotation rather than prose.

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?

This is a domain-specific Vedic timing tool with a single body parameter bundling several fields, and the caller must understand what a Sthira pratyantardasha is and how to target a period. The description explains none of that, and the undocumented targetDate/targetTime inputs mean an agent cannot infer how to narrow the cascade to a specific period.

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 birth-data fields (date, time, latitude, longitude, ayanamsa, timezone, houseSystem) are documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is acceptable at the baseline given the rich schema, but it also leaves the targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset fields, which are central to querying a specific pratyantar period, entirely unexplained in both places.

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 resource (Sthira Pratyantardasha) and states it is a "3-level cascade", which, combined with the systematic sibling naming, lets an agent place it at the maha→antar→pratyantar level. However, it never says in plain terms what it computes or returns (a time-bounded Vedic dasha period table), so an agent unfamiliar with the nomenclature gets no real explanation of purpose.

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 choose this over the sibling pratyantar tools (Vimshottari, Yogini, Chara, etc.) or over sthira_maha/antar/prana/sookshma. The only context given is the bracket tag "[Group: Vedic]" and the credit cost, neither of which guides selection.

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