Dashas — Ashtottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already convey safety profile. Description adds non-behavioral context (group, cost) but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, response format, or limits. 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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for group/cost, and one example. Front-loads the key identity (name and grain level). No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not hint at what the response contains (e.g., dasha periods, timings). For a complex dasha tool, understanding the output structure is essential. The phrase '5-level cascade' is not explained, leaving interpretation open. Annotations exist but do not compensate for missing output context.

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% with detailed field descriptions. The description adds value by providing a concrete example request body, aiding understanding of parameter usage and format beyond the schema alone.

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 states the tool computes 'Ashtottari Pranadasha — 5-level cascade (finest grain)'. The verb 'cascade' and phrase 'finest grain' precisely define its function and differentiation from other Ashtottari dasha levels (maha, antar, pratyantar, sookshma) seen in sibling tool names.

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 it is for very detailed timing assessments via 'finest grain', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs other Ashtottari levels or alternative dasha systems. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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