get_dasha_narrative_ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the AI add-on requirement, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it makes any modifications, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. However, the phrase 'based on the ruling planet, its placement...' is somewhat verbose but not wasteful.

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 5 required parameters (birth details), a clear purpose, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the narrative covers but lacks details on the output format or any prerequisites beyond the AI add-on.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain, for instance, that the birth details are required to compute the Dasha period.

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 the tool returns an AI-generated narrative for the current Dasha, specifying what it covers (themes, challenges, opportunities) and how it's derived (ruling planet, placement, interactions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_dasha (which likely returns raw data) and interpret_chart_ai (general AI interpretation).

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 implies usage when the user wants an AI interpretation of the current Dasha, with the prerequisite of an AI add-on plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for raw Dasha data) or mention alternatives like get_current_dasha.

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