Dashas — Sthira Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds only the grain level ('finest grain') and cascade depth, which is useful but insufficient to disclose behavior like output structure or data scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's key feature. Including an example request is helpful, though it adds length. Overall, it is efficient and to the point.

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 is complex (5-level cascade), but the description does not explain what the output contains, how cascading works, or how to interpret results. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate, which it does not.

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 burden on the description is lower. The description provides an example request body but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as computing Sthira Pranadasha periods, with a distinctive feature '5-level cascade (finest grain)' that differentiates it from other dasha tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'calculates', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 (e.g., Vimshottari, Ashtottari). The description only mentions the group 'Vedic', which is too vague to aid selection among dozens of sibling dashas.

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