Dashas — Shatabdika Pranadasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds '5-level cascade (finest grain)' which clarifies the computational granularity, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as data dependencies or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. Every element serves a purpose—identifying the dasha system, level, group, and providing a concrete example. No fluff.

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?

The description lacks output context. With no output schema, agents are left guessing the response structure (e.g., list of periods with dates). The example only covers input. For a fine-grained computation tool, 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with embedded descriptions. The description contributes an example request body, which demonstrates parameter usage but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. 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?

Clearly states it's a Shatabdika Pranadasha (5-level cascade, finest grain), distinguishing it from coarser dasha levels (maha, antar) and other dasha systems among siblings. The verb 'compute' is implied via description and title.

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 explicit when or when-not to use. The description does not differentiate this tool from other prana dashas (e.g., vimshottari prana) or explain context for selection beyond the group 'Vedic'. No alternatives mentioned.

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