Dashas — Shodashottari Pranadasha

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 '5-level cascade' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or output structure. It relies heavily on annotations for transparency.

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 two sentences and an example, front-loading key info. The example is lengthy but valuable. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 nested parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values or what the '5-level cascade' produces. It does not explain the output structure, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description includes an example request body, which adds practical clarity but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Shodashottari Pranadasha — 5-level cascade (finest grain)', specifying the exact dasha system and level (prana). It distinguishes from sibling tools like shodashottari_maha, antar, etc., which are coarser levels.

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?

The description implies use for finest-grain timing via '5-level cascade (finest grain)' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other dashas levels or alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements.

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