vedika_dasha_ashtottari

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load — and it does disclose the return payload (current Mahadasha, Antardasha, full timeline with start/end dates) and the per-call cost of $0.020. It omits any note on computation latency, idempotency, or failure modes for polar latitudes (the latter only appears in the schema).

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then conditions, then return shape and cost — a sensible ordering. The planet-by-period enumeration (Sun 6y … Venus 21y) is somewhat verbose but substantiates the 108-year total, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: the result structure, the dasha system's composition, and the pricing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or set expectations is absent.

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%, including enums for depth and ayanamsa, so the schema already documents every parameter fully. The description doesn't add guidance on parameter choice (e.g. when to pick pratyantardasha depth) beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Calculate the Ashtottari Dasha") and immediately scopes it against the sibling Vimshottari dasha tool by naming the 120-year alternative it replaces. An agent can distinguish this from vedika_dasha without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete astrological conditions for selection (Rahu in Kendra/Trikona from the Lagna lord; night birth in Krishna Paksha or day birth in Shukla Paksha), which implicitly defines when the Vimshottari sibling is the fallback. It stops short of explicitly naming vedika_dasha as the default alternative, leaving a small inference gap.

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