Dashas — Shoola Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only '5-level cascade (finest grain)', which hints at the output granularity but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required input fields, computation logic, or what 'cascade' means. The example shows some parameters but lacks explanation.

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 extremely concise: one line and an example. No redundant information. However, it could benefit from a short sentence explaining the tool's function. The example is well-placed for immediate understanding, but overall structure is minimal.

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?

Given the complexity (5-level cascade) and absence of output schema, the description leaves many gaps. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the cascade is structured, or how input parameters affect results. With many similar sibling tools, it fails to differentiate beyond the name. The example is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, and schema includes descriptions for some fields. The description provides a concrete example request body, which helps with parameter format and values. However, it does not explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., targetDate, antardasaSeedOption) or how defaults affect output. The example is useful but incomplete.

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 title and description clearly indicate it's the Shoola Pranadasha, the finest grain (5-level cascade) in the Shoola dasha system. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vedic_dashas_shoola_maha by specifying 'prana' and 'finest grain'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., calculates, computes).

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 other dasha tools or other levels (e.g., maha, antar). The description does not mention when the prana level is appropriate or indicate alternatives.

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