Lal Kitab: Dasha (35-year cycle)

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 covered. The description adds real operational context the annotations lack: the endpoint, the 20-credit Tier 2 cost, and the four required inputs. It does not describe what the returned cycle looks like or how it handles dates before birth or beyond the 35-year span.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the substantive cycle math, and the bracketed metadata block is terse. The endpoint line is marginal since the tool name already conveys the resource, but cost and required-input lines earn their place. No filler prose.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with 13 parameters at 23% coverage and several astrological configuration knobs (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem), the description should tell the agent whether defaults are safe for a Lal Kitab reading. It notes the 35 vs 38-year school ambiguity and a `method` flag that no schema property defines, leaving an unresolved reference.

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 only 23%, so the description must compensate, but it merely re-lists the four required parameters already marked required in the schema. Nothing is said about ayanamsa/zodiacType/houseSystem choice, cosmogram, or city/name, several of which are undocumented in the schema as well. The only added semantic is the `method` flagnote, which does not correspond to any declared parameter.

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 names a specific technique (Lal Kitab dasha) and quantifies its structure: a 35-year cycle advancing one house per ~2.917 years from age 0. That is far more than a restated name and lets an agent distinguish it from the vimshottari/ashtottari/chara dasha siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings by name, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 reach for this tool versus the many other Vedic dasha tools or the other Lal Kitab tools (kismat, life_graph, varshphal). The only routing-adjacent note is that an alternate 38-year implementation exists and is flagged in `method`, which is interpretive context rather than use guidance. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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