Dashas — Vimshottari Pranadasha

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already disclose safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a 5th-level sub-period with typical duration and cost (50 credits). Behavioral information beyond annotations is minimal but consistent.

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: key function (Pranadasha, finest grain), cascade info, typical duration, then group and cost, ending with a realistic example. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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 dasha sub-periods and many sibling tools, the description covers the essence and provides a concrete example. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., planet periods, dates). The example hints at the input but not output. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description includes an example request body that illustrates required (date, time, targetDate) and optional parameters (timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude). No explicit parameter descriptions, but the example adds practical value. The schema itself includes descriptive text for the body.

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 this as Pranadasha, the finest 5th-level sub-period in the Vimshottari dasha system. It mentions 'finest grain' and typical duration (hours to days), distinguishing it from higher-level dashas like mahadasha or antardasha among siblings. However, it could be more explicit about the hierarchy of levels.

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 implies usage for fine-grained timing by stating 'finest grain' and providing an example with a targetDate. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other levels (e.g., maha, antar) or when not to use it. No exclusion or alternative guidance is given.

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