Dashas — Tribhagi Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal value beyond them.

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—one sentence plus a group label and example. While it is efficient, it could be better structured with bullet points or sections for readability. Still, it is not verbose.

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 Vedic dashas and the many sibling tools, the description lacks important context: what makes Tribhagi unique, how the 9 PDs are defined, and what the return value looks like (no output schema). It is incomplete for a knowledgeable selection.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description only provides an example request, adding no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as 'Tribhagi Pratyantardasha' and explains it as a 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 9 PDs), which clearly states what it computes. However, it does not distinguish this specific system from sibling pratyantar tools (e.g., vimshottari_pratyantar), so differentiation is weak.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other dasha systems or levels. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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