Dashas — Shatabdika Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is a 3-level cascade, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions noted. However, it does not mention any input validation, error conditions, or output characteristics.

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 concise: one line for the cascade, one line for group, and an example. No unnecessary words. It could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for key features), but it efficiently communicates the core idea.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at what the output contains (e.g., period dates, planets, sub-periods). The agent cannot determine if this tool meets the user's need without additional knowledge. The example only shows input, leaving output behavior unspecified.

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 itself provides detailed parameter explanations (e.g., required fields, defaults). The tool description adds an example request body but does not further explain the parameters' meaning or usage beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not elevate understanding.

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 identifies the tool as 'Shatabdika Pratyantardasha — 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 7 PDs)'. It names the dasha system and level, distinguishing it from other vedic dasha tools in the sibling list. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'calculate' or 'compute', slightly reducing clarity. The example request body reinforces the purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many similar dasha tools (e.g., antar, maha, sookshma, or other systems like vimshottari), the description does not explain the specific use case for shatabdika pratyantar. An agent would need external knowledge to decide.

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