Dashas — Tribhagi Antardasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of a 'recursive proportional split' adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, the description does not disclose potential side effects beyond read-only, nor does it describe the output structure or error conditions. The formula is helpful but not fully transparent.

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: three sentences plus an example. It front-loads the core purpose and formula, and the example is directly helpful. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 of the tool (astrological dasha sub-periods) and the lack of an output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the recursive formula and providing an example. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., array of periods with dates and planets), which limits completeness. The tool is one of many similar dashas tools, so more detail would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties, so the baseline is 3. The tool description provides an example request body, which adds a concrete illustration but does not explain the meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, no substantial additional semantic value.

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 that this tool provides '9 sub-periods of the running MD at targetDate' for the Tribhagi Antardasha system, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by including 'Tribhagi' and 'Antardasha' in the name and description, and by specifying the recursive proportional split formula.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other antardasha tools (e.g., vedic_dashas_vimshottari_antar). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or alternative tools, which is a significant gap given the large number of sibling dashas tools.

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