Dashas — Shoola Pratyantardasha

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 '3-level cascade' which offers minimal behavioral insight beyond annotations. It does not disclose what data is returned, any side effects, or computational scope.

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 short, consisting of a single line and an example. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness. No structured sections or clear presentation of tool behavior.

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 (many sibling dasha tools, nested schema, no output schema), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool computes, how to interpret results, or any constraints. Missing essential context for effective use.

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% description coverage with explicit details for birth data and target fields. The tool description itself adds no parameter explanation, but schema descriptions are sufficient, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description merely states 'Shoola Pratyantardasha — 3-level cascade,' which is a tautology of the title and name. It does not explain what a pratyantardasha is or how it differs from sibling tools like antar or sookshma. The verb 'cascade' is vague, failing to specify the tool's computation or output.

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 its many siblings. The description lacks context for selecting pratyantar over antar or sookshma levels, or any prerequisites. Complete omission of usage direction.

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