Dashas: Yogini Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context -- the POST endpoint and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost -- which is not in any structured field. It says nothing about the size/shape of the cascade output or any compute latency, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the technique name leads and the operational metadata follows. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being trimmed to essentials.

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 single-body-parameter, read-only computation with a full output schema and clear annotations, the definition is broadly sufficient to invoke correctly. It is incomplete on the interpretive side: nothing explains what the five cascade levels are, whether all levels are returned, or that a target date can be supplied, which matters for picking this tool over its four siblings.

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 reported at 100% and the nested birth-data schema is thoroughly documented inline (coordinate rules, timezone semantics, houseSystem letters), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, and notably leaves the optional targetDate/targetTime branch -- the one field an agent would need to know about to query a dasha for a specific moment -- unexplained.

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?

"Yogini Pranadasha" names the specific dasha system and sub-level, and "5-level cascade (finest grain)" hints at the depth of output and distinguishes it from coarser siblings such as _maha or _antar. However, there is no verb (calculate/return), and it remains ambiguous whether the result contains only the prana level or all five nested levels; a non-Jyotish reader gets little beyond the title.

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?

"Finest grain" implicitly signals this is the deepest member of the Yogini family, so an agent can infer it is for maximum-precision timing. But no alternative is named explicitly, no when-not condition is given, and the choice between _sookshma and _prana is left to inference from the hierarchy alone.

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