Dashas: Vimshottari Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context (20 credits, Tier 2, endpoint) and notes the 4-level cascade output shape, but it does not discuss return content, prerequisites, or error behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the core definition, with metadata in bracketed lines that are easy to scan. '4-level cascade' slightly restates '4th-level' but otherwise every sentence carries some information. Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a computation tool surrounded by dozens of dasha-level siblings, the definition lacks the usage routing and prerequisite context an agent needs to choose it confidently. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 richly documents the birth data and target date/time fields. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 description identifies the resource as the Sookshma (4th-level) dasha and notes it is nested inside the running Pratyantardasha, which is more specific than a label. However, it never names the Vimshottari system, so an agent must infer that from the tool name/title, and it gives no differentiation from the many sibling sookshma tools or from vimshottari_prana/pratyantar. Purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'within the running Pratyantardasha' implies a prerequisite context but does not tell the agent to call pratyantar first, or when to prefer prana/antar/maha instead. A long sibling list of dasha variants makes this omission costly.

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