Dashas — Ashtottari Antardasha

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are consistent. Description adds behavioral context: calculates antardasha, uses formula (P.years × Q.years)/108, defaults targetDate to today UTC, and includes group/cost info. No contradiction with 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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus group/credit info and an example. No extraneous text; all content is purposeful and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 schema richness and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, formula, default date, and example. Lacks explanation of output structure, but no output schema is provided, so this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds meaning by explaining the formula, default targetDate behavior, and providing a full example request body. The input schema is well-documented, and the description complements it without redundancy.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as calculating Ashtottari Antardasha sub-periods. It specifies it returns 8 sub-periods for a running mahadasha at a target date. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling dasha tools (e.g., _maha, _prana), which are closely related.

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 description implies this tool is for sub-period analysis within the Ashtottari system but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus other dasha levels or alternative dashas. No mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use.

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