Dashas — Vimshottari Sookshmadasha

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover behavioral traits. The description adds only '4-level cascade' and an example request, but no additional details about what happens during computation, response structure, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations. Given the annotations carry the transparency burden, the description's contribution is modest.

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 with two sentences plus group/cost tag and an example. Every element serves a purpose: defining the tool, indicating group and cost, and providing a concrete request example. No wasted words, though could include brief output note. Efficient for its role.

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 tool's complexity (4th-level dasha calculator), the description is minimally adequate. Schema and annotations handle input and safety. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of sookshma periods). For an agent, it may lack sufficient context to fully understand the output; but the domain-specific name partly compensates.

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%, with the body parameter fully described. The description does not list or explain parameters beyond the example. It adds no new semantic information; the schema already explains required fields and defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage with no extra explanation.

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 it is the 'Sookshma (4th-level Dasha) within the running Pratyantardasha'. The title specifies 'Vimshottari Sookshmadasha', distinguishing it from other dasha systems (e.g., ashtottari, chara) and levels (maha, antar, pratyantar, prana). This precisely identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from numerous sibling dasha tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or mention other tools like vedic_dashas_vimshottari_pratyantar. The context is implied by the name, but there is no direct usage instruction or differentiation strategy.

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