Dashas — Shatabdika Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, signaling safe behavior. The description adds specific algorithmic details (planets, sequence, distribution) and an example request, but doesn't mention prerequisites, output structure, or potential edge cases. It adds value beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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 (5 sentences) with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example request. The [Group: Vedic] tag aids categorization. Every sentence adds value.

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 a 100-year dasha cycle, the description covers algorithm and rules but omits output format (no output schema) and usage context. With many sibling dasha tools, more guidance on when to use this one would improve completeness.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description provides an example request body, which helps clarify the expected format, but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already contains.

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 a specific 100-year nakshatra dasha cycle (Shatabdika) with explicit source (BPHS Adhyaya 46), planet sequence, and distribution rules. It distinguishes itself from other dasha tools (vimshottari, ashtottari) by naming and detailing its unique parameters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling dasha tools (e.g., Vimshottari, Ashtottari). The description does not provide context on what makes Shatabdika appropriate for a given query, such as specific nakshatra or planetary considerations.

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