Dashas — Kalachakra Mahadasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by noting it returns 9 mahadashas, with first truncated by elapsed pada, and explains the varying cycle lengths (100/85/83/86 years). 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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with key distinguishing features. However, it is truncated with an ellipsis, which may hinder complete understanding. Still efficient and to the point.

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 specialized tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks details on output format and the effect of optional targetDate parameters. Adequate for domain experts but not fully complete for general AI agents.

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% (body property has detailed descriptions). Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it computes Kalachakra Mahadasha (a rasi-dasha), distinguishes from planet-based dashas, and explains the chakra rows, nakshatra groups, and paramayu variation. Sibling tools include many other dasha types, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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?

Description implies usage for Kalachakra system (rasi-dasha) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs other dasha tools. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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