Dashas — Vimshottari Antardasha

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral detail: returns exactly 9 ADs, uses a formula, defaults to today UTC, and includes cost/group metadata. This provides value beyond the 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 relatively concise: purpose, formula, group, cost, example. It front-loads the main function. Extra details (example) are useful but slightly lengthen it; still efficient.

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?

No output schema; description states 'returns the 9 ADs' and gives formula, but does not describe the structure or fields of each AD. The example request hints at input but not output. For a tool of this complexity, more detail on returned data would improve completeness.

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% (body described well). The description adds context beyond schema by explaining how targetDate is used (defaults to today) and providing the calculation formula and an example request. This enhances understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: computing antardashas (sub-periods) within a running mahadasha. It specifies the input (targetDate), output (9 ADs), formula, and distinguishes from other vimsottari dasha levels like maha, prana, etc., as seen in sibling tool names.

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 explains the tool's function but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other dasha sub-period tools or other dasha systems). It implies usage when antardashas are needed, but lacks when-not or comparison cues.

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