Dashas — Shoola Antardasha

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds that it computes sub-periods at a target date using a seed option, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction.

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 a single efficient sentence covering the purpose and key parameters, plus a group label and example. 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?

The tool has many sibling tools for different dasha levels, but no output schema. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of periods, dates, lords), leaving the agent without sufficient context to interpret results. More behavioral details are needed.

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 the parameters in detail (e.g., body with birth data fields). The description only mentions targetDate and antardasaSeedOption, adding little meaning beyond the schema. 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 'Shoola Antardasha — sub-periods of running MD at targetDate per chosen antardasaSeedOption'. It specifies the verb (calculates sub-periods), the resource (Shoola antardasha), and distinguishes from many sibling dasha tools (e.g., vimshottari, ashtottari) by name and group.

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 usage for computing sub-periods of a running Mahadasha, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other dasha levels (e.g., prana, pratyantar) or alternative dasha systems. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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