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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context that annotations cannot express — the 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but says nothing about the required inputs or what the computation assumes.

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 compact lines with the deliverable front-loaded and the cost/group metadata clearly bracketed at the end. Nothing is padded, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the input contract (required date/time/lat/long) and any differentiation from the Parashara, Lal Kitab, and KP-full Pitra siblings — a real gap in a family of near-identical dosha tools.

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 only 33% (15 parameters, most of them undocumented in the schema), and the description supplies no parameter information at all — no required birth data, no mention of the ayanamsa/house-system choices that materially change a KP dosha result. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 names the specific deliverable — Pitra dosha computed via the KP Sun sub-lord chain — and the parenthetical '(Sun affliction)' clarifies the term for an agent that may not know it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling dosha tools (parashara_pitru, lal_kitab_pitra, kp_full), so an agent must infer the KP-specific angle from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (birth date, time, and coordinates are required), and no mention of the alternative Pitra tools that exist. The only operational note is the group tag and credit cost.

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