Dashas — Tribhagi Mahadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a 'running cycle of 9 mahadashas from the chart' and details the period reductions (e.g., Ketu 7/3, Venus 20/3). This contextualizes the output beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (3 sentences plus example) and front-loaded with key information: definition, scale, planet sequence, use case. Every sentence adds value, and the example request body is a helpful addition. No wordiness or 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 no output schema, the description states the output is 'the running cycle of 9 mahadashas from the chart' which provides basic completeness. For a dasha tool, this is sufficient context, though more detail on output format would increase completeness. The description adequately covers what the tool does and returns.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description includes an example request body which is helpful but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 this tool computes the Tribhagi Mahadasha, a 1/3-scale variant of Vimshottari, with the same planet sequence and nakshatra-mapping rule. It explicitly distinguishes from Vimshottari by noting the scale factor and use case ('finer-grain timing'). The verb 'Returns the running cycle' is specific and tied to the resource 'Tribhagi Mahadasha'.

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 explicitly says 'Useful when finer-grain timing is needed within a Vimshottari-equivalent span', which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the standard Vimshottari. While it does not list exclusions or enumerate alternatives, the context of many sibling dasha tools makes the guidance actionable.

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