Dashas — Yogini Mahadasha

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds key behavior: starts from yogini-of-Moon-nakshatra at birth, first MD truncated. This clarifies the computation start point, going beyond 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?

Description is mostly concise but includes extra metadata like '[Group: Vedic]' and '[Cost: 50 credits (Tier 3)]' which could clutter the core description. The example request body is useful but adds length. Front-loaded with the main purpose is good.

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 moderate complexity (36-year dasha, 8 yoginis, starting condition) and rich schema, the description covers essential computational logic. However, it lacks any mention of output structure (e.g., a list of periods), which would help agents understand the return format without an output schema.

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 has 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds an example request body with format and defaults, clarifying how to set date/time and optional fields like latitude/longitude. This adds practical meaning.

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?

Description precisely names the tool as '36-year Yogini Dasha' and lists the 8 yoginis with their rulers and periods, clearly distinguishing it from many sibling dashas (e.g., vimshottari, ashtottari). The verb 'computes' is implied, but the resource and scope are explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use Yogini Dasha versus other dashas. Among many sibling dashas (vimshottari, ashtottari, etc.), an agent would benefit from selection criteria. The description only implies usage for Vedic calculations.

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