Dashas — Chara Antardasha

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the equal-share subdivision (parent_years/12) and the ordering rule (next sign first, parent sign last). This is useful. However, it does not discuss potential limitations, error conditions, or data sensitivity. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so no 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 very concise: three sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value (purpose, algorithm, ordering, and example). 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?

For a complex Vedic dasha tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that birth chart data (date, time, location) is required to compute the running mahadasha, nor does it describe the output format (list of antardashas with start/end dates). The example includes birth data but the description assumes prior knowledge of dasha mechanics.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds an example body but does not provide additional meaning for parameters like latitude, longitude, or ayanamsaId. The description's mention of targetDate default is helpful but minimal.

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 12 sub-periods (antardashas) of a running mahadasha at a given date. It specifies the subdivision is equal-share. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like vedic_dashas_chara_prana or vedic_dashas_chara_sookshma, which also calculate sub-periods at different levels.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like maha, prana, pratyantar, or sookshma. The description mentions the calculation method and order but does not help the agent decide which dasha level to query. An example request is given but without usage context.

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