Dashas — Chara Pranadasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds '5-level cascade' and 'minute-scale duration' but does not clarify computational depth, limits, or what the cascade levels represent. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise: one line of core info, group label, and example. No wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like a summary sentence or explicit return description.

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 and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of dasha periods, timings). Given the complexity of a 5-level cascade, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities.

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%, fully defining all parameters. The description provides an example that reinforces the schema fields but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Chara Pranadasha — 5-level cascade (finest grain). Minute-scale duration at full depth.' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as computing a specific Vedic dasha system at the finest granularity. The example reinforces the input requirements. However, it could be more explicit about the output nature.

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 fine-grained timing analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling dasha tools (e.g., vedic_dashas_chara_maha, vedic_dashas_chara_pratyantar). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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