Dashas — Yogini Pranadasha

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as what computations are performed, assumptions, or any side effects (e.g., cost implications). The cost mention is present in a separate line but not part of the behavioral description.

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 extremely concise (one line plus example and metadata) but at the cost of being under-specified. Important information about the dasha system, computation, and output is missing, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., dasha periods, dates, interpretations). With many sibling dasha tools at different levels, the lack of context makes it nearly impossible for an agent to distinguish this tool from others without prior domain knowledge.

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 descriptions for the 'body' parameter including birth date, time, timezone, etc. The tool description does not add any further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states 'Yogini Pranadasha — 5-level cascade (finest grain)', which is cryptic and heavy on jargon without explaining what the tool computes or returns. It does not clearly state the verb+resource, making it difficult for an agent to infer the tool's purpose without domain knowledge.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling dasha tools at different levels (maha, antar, pratyantar, sookshma) or other dasha systems. The description does not mention any context or alternatives, forcing the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

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