Dashas — Yogini Antardasha

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds the formula and default targetDate behavior (today UTC) but does not describe side effects or computational complexity. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value.

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: two sentences of purpose, a formula, group/cost metadata, and an example. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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?

The description provides formula and example but does not describe the output format. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need to guess the response structure. The description is adequate for a simple computation but incomplete for an agent needing output details.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed properties. The description adds a clarifying note on defaults ('pass real values for accurate computation') and includes an example request body, which helps the agent understand parameter usage 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 it computes the 8 sub-periods of the Yogini Antardasha at a target date, with a formula provided. It is specific to the Yogini dasha system, distinguishing it from many 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 tells what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like Vimshottari or Ashtottari dashas. It implies Vedic astrology context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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