Dashas: Yogini Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, and an output schema exists, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the structured fields do not carry: the endpoint, the Vedic group, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for call budgeting. It still says nothing about what the four cascade levels contain or how results are shaped.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but three of the four lines are bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost). Nothing is padded, yet the space used for metadata could have carried the level explanation that is missing.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and safety by annotations, but for a tool in a family of near-identically named siblings, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: what 'sookshma' means relative to the other Yogini levels and when that granularity is the right choice.

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 already documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone handling, ayanamsa, and house system in detail. The description contributes nothing about the targetDate/targetTime fields, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 restates the tool name plus one fragment, '4-level cascade,' which hints at depth but never states what the tool actually computes or returns. It does not distinguish this from the four sibling Yogini tools (maha, antar, pratyantar, prana), whose names differ only by daśā level.

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 use the sookshma level versus the maha, antar, pratyantar, or prana siblings, and no prerequisites or target-date guidance. An agent must guess the level hierarchy from the names alone.

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