Dashas — Shodashottari Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations (cycle length, planet sequence, tradition) without contradiction. No disclosure of side effects or permissions is needed given readOnlyHint, so the description augments understanding of what the tool computes.

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 moderately concise (two sentences plus an example). It includes technical details (sequence, distribution) that may be dense but are relevant. The example is helpful. Could be slightly more organized, but no wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., dasha periods, dates, sub-periods). Given the complex input schema and many sibling tools, the missing output explanation leaves the agent guessing about the result structure. The description focuses on the system's parameters but omits the output format.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties. The description provides an example request body and notes that lat/lon/tz default to 0, urging real values for accuracy. This adds practical value beyond the schema alone, though the schema already documents required fields and defaults.

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 'Shodashottari Dasha — 116-year nakshatra dasha cycle' with specific details (BPHS Adhyaya 46, 8 planets, seed nakshatra Pushya, sequence, distribution, tradition). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling dasha tools (vimshottari, ashtottari, etc.) by naming the system and 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description mentions 'Per AmatyaKaraka tradition: applicable when lagna in Chandra hora during Krishna paksha …' but this is a condition for the dasha system itself, not a directive for the AI agent to choose this over sibling dasha tools. Siblings like vedic_dashas_vimshottari_maha are not referenced, so the agent lacks context to differentiate.

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