Dashas — Sthira Antardasha

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds that sub-periods are 'equal-split', providing computational context. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid target dates or missing birth data, nor describe the output format or data structure.

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 very concise—two lines and an example—which is efficient. Front-loads purpose and method. However, it could be improved by adding a brief sentence about the output, but overall packs relevant info without fluff.

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 dashas, nested input schema) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on the return value (e.g., a list of antardasha periods with start/end dates), which is essential for an agent to decide if this tool meets the user's need.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema describes all parameters. The description adds value with an example request body and a note on lat/lon defaults, but does not explain the targetDate parameter's role or how targetTime/targetTzOffset relate to the computation.

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 it computes 'equal-split sub-periods of running MD at targetDate' for Sthira Antardasha, identifying the dasha system and sub-period level. It distinguishes itself from other vedic dasha tools by name and brief method, but could more explicitly state the output (e.g., list of sub-periods with dates).

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 like vedic_dashas_sthira_prana or vedic_dashas_vimshottari_antar. The 'Group: Vedic' hint is present but not actionable for selection. A sentence explaining that this is for equal-split sub-periods within the Sthira system would help.

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