Dashas — Ashtottari Mahadasha

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

The description adds several behavioral details beyond the annotations: the specific planets and their periods, the block-based nakshatra mapping (4-3-4-3-3-3-4-3 anchored at Ardra), and the applicability flag per BPHS 46.23 (day Krishna OR night Shukla). It also notes the cost (50 credits) and group (Vedic). The annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and not open-world; the description enriches the behavioral model without contradiction.

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 relatively concise, using three sentences to convey the core purpose, details, and applicability condition. It also includes group and cost info in separate lines. However, the cost and group lines could be moved to annotations or metadata. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, which aids quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify return values. It mentions an applicability flag but not the full output (e.g., list of dasha periods). The tool requires a birth chart input, but the description does not explicitly state that input is a birth date/time. The example helps, but reliance on example is weak. Additionally, with many sibling dasha tools, more context on selection criteria would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'body', which is a composed schema describing birth data with required fields (date, time) and optional fields. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only provides an example request body. For a tool with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not further clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the 108-year Ashtottari Mahadasha (Ardradi tradition) and lists the 8 planets with their periods (6/15/8/17/10/19/12/21). It specifies that Ketu is excluded and mentions the block-based mapping anchored at Ardra. This distinguishes it from other dasha systems like Vimshottari or Chara, and from other Ashtottari sub-period tools (antar, prana, etc.). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where Ashtottari is preferred over Vimshottari, Chara, or other dashas. There is no comparison with sibling tools like vedic_dashas_vimshottari_maha or vedic_dashas_chara_maha. Without such context, an AI agent cannot decide when to invoke this tool.

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