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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (active phase plus KP Saturn sub-lord chain) and the cost tier, but says nothing about rate limits, credit-burn implications, or failure modes.

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 sentences plus bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the core computation before the return description. Every element earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The description conveys the trigger condition, scope, and output character adequately, though it omits that full birth data (date, time, coordinates) is required input — a small gap given the complex nested schema.

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 body/fields/precision parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description names targetDate but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 — it returns the Sade Sati state for a given targetDate — and defines the phenomenon precisely (Saturn transiting 12th/1st/2nd from natal Moon over 7.5 years). This is clearly distinct from sibling dosha tools such as kp_manglik or kp_kemadruma, which cover different conditions.

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 via 'at targetDate' and the natal-Moon dependency, so an agent can infer it's for Sade Sati assessment at a moment. However, it never states when to use this versus the other KP dosha tools or the full dosha suite, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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