Dashas — Yogini Pratyantardasha

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: the 3-level cascade structure (MD→AD→8 PDs) and cost/group metadata. No contradiction with annotations. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the computational scope.

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?

Two short sentences plus an example. No waste. Front-loaded with the cascade structure. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but it is efficient and clear.

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 explains the cascade levels and includes an example, which helps. However, it does not mention return format (no output schema), and with many sibling dashas, an explanation of when Yogini is relevant would improve completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description provides an example request body with concrete values, which adds practical context, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. At high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Yogini Pratyantardasha — 3-level cascade (MD → AD → 8 PDs)', specifying the verb (computes), resource (Yogini Pratyantardasha), and scope (3-level cascade). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling dasha tools like 'vedic_dashas_yogini_maha' or 'vedic_dashas_vimshottari_pratyantar'.

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 on when to use Yogini versus other dasha systems (e.g., Vimshottari, Ashtottari). The description only states what it does, not the context or alternatives. The agent receives no help choosing this over many sibling dashas tools.

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