Dashas: Sthira Sookshmadasha

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. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the POST endpoint path, the Vedic group, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost. It does not disclose anything about depth of the cascade, computation scope, or response size, so it is additive but thin.

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?

Two short lines, with the identifying phrase front-loaded and metadata bracketed compactly; no filler sentences. It is appropriately sized for what it contains, though what it contains is nearly all boilerplate.

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?

For a high-complexity Vedic dasha calculation with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description omits the one thing an agent needs: what distinguishes a sookshma-level Sthira dasha from the maha/antar/pratyantar/prana siblings and from the other dasha systems. Cost and namespace metadata are present, but the selection-critical context is absent.

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 single body parameter is exhaustively documented in the schema itself (date/time formats, timezone rules, ayanamsa, houseSystem letters, targetDate fields). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 text is essentially the tool's title plus the phrase "4-level cascade", which only hints that this is the sookshma (4th) level of the Sthira dasha hierarchy. It never explains what a Sthira sookshma dasha is or how it differs from the four sibling levels (maha, antar, pratyantar, prana) and the same-named levels in Vimshottari, Yogini, Chara, etc. An agent reading this cannot tell the tool apart from its siblings without external knowledge.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-selection guidance at all. The only decision-relevant signal is the cost line (20 credits, Tier 2), which helps budget choice but not tool selection among the many dasha endpoints.

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