Dashas — Chara Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it uses recursive equal-share subdivision with same direction at every depth, which enriches the behavioral model beyond 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 very short and front-loaded with key info (name, cascade levels, and group tag). It earns its place but could be slightly more informative about output or sibling distinction without losing conciseness.

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 many sibling dashas and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a specialized Vedic tool. It lacks explanation of 'chara' or how it differs from other systems, and does not describe the return format.

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% (all properties described in schema). The description adds an example request body but no new semantic information about parameters beyond the schema.

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 it computes Chara Pratyantardasha, a 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 12 PDs). Among many sibling dashas, this specific level is unambiguously identified.

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 usage for Chara Pratyantardasha computation but does not compare with other dasha levels (e.g., antar, prana) or other dasha systems, leaving an agent to guess when to choose this tool.

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