Dashas — Kalachakra Antardasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it uses the same chakra-row at every depth and provides the formula. This adds some behavioral context, but does not disclose potential side effects or dependencies on accuracy of input parameters.

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, contains the formula, group, and cost indication. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the technical formula might be improved with a brief plain-language explanation.

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 of the tool and absence of output schema, the description does not describe the return structure (e.g., list of periods with signs, years, dates). It mentions '9 sub-periods' but not their format or how to interpret the results. This is a significant 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including birth data and target date. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the targetDate concept. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 that the tool computes the 9 sub-periods (antardasha) of a running Mahadasha at a target date, and provides the calculation formula. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like the maha and prana levels by specifying the antardasha level. However, it could be more explicit about the output being a list of sub-periods.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., maha, prana, sookshma). It only names the level and gives a formula, but no context for selection or exclusions.

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