Dashas — Chara Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds computational details (direction logic, duration formula) but is cut off and does not fully disclose computation limits or side effects. 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?

The description is a single paragraph that is moderately concise but incomplete due to truncation ('lord-in-own-…'). It front-loads the system name and key rules, but the cut-off reduces clarity. Each sentence adds value, but the overall structure could be improved by a brief summary of what the tool returns.

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 complexity (many sibling dashas) and lack of output schema, the description should state what the tool returns (e.g., list of periods with lords, dates). It does not. It also omits mention of the optional target parameters, leaving agents uninformed about progressive computation. The example only shows birth data, reinforcing this gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description does not add any parameter meanings. Critically, it fails to mention that the tool accepts an optional targetDate/targetTime/targetTzOffset for projecting dashes to a specific date, which is a key capability. The description only discusses the dasha system, ignoring the input structure.

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 computing Chara Mahadasha, a Jaimini rasi-dasha. It explains the key characteristics (12 signs, variable duration, direction rules), distinguishing it from planet-based dashas. However, it could be more action-oriented by explicitly stating 'calculates periods' rather than describing the system.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other dasha tools among many siblings. It only mentions it's a Jaimini rasi-dasha, implying a specific system, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for Chara Dasha; for Vimshottari use vedic_dashas_vimshottari_maha'). No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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