Dashas — Vimshottari Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds contextual info like cost and group but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs). It does not contradict 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 concise with two sentences plus metadata, and it front-loads the core purpose. The example request body is useful but could be trimmed; still, no superfluous content.

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 annotations and full schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the return format of the 9 PDs, which could be helpful for an agent. It covers the cascade logic but lacks output structure.

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. The description adds an example request body and notes about passing real lat/lon/tz for accuracy, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 computes Pratyantardasha, a sub-sub-period within the running Antardasha, and explains the 3-level cascade (MD->AD->9 PDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_dashas_vimshottari_antar and vedic_dashas_vimshottari_maha.

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 when you need sub-sub-period details within the current Antardasha, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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