Dashas: Vimshottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the five-level cascade structure, the typical duration of Prana sub-periods, the endpoint, and the cost of 20 credits (Tier 2). It does not explain output format, but an output schema exists.

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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient: the first sentence identifies the dasha level and grain, the second states the cascade depth, and the third gives typical duration. The bracketed metadata is compact and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough to understand what is computed and how fine-grained the result is. It is slightly incomplete for such a large sibling family because it omits explicit routing guidance among the Vimshottari dasha levels, but the essential context is present.

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 nested body schema thoroughly documents birth data, timezone handling, ayanamsa, house system, and target date/time fields. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full 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 clearly identifies the tool as the Pranadasha, the fifth-level Vimshottari dasha, and calls it the finest grain. It distinguishes itself from higher-level dasha tools by level and temporal resolution, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as the sookshma or pratyantar endpoints.

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 mention of 'finest grain' and sub-periods lasting hours to days implies this is for very short-term timing, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sookshma, pratyantar, or other dasha levels, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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