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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output shape and the credit cost/group tag, which is useful, but says nothing about the ayanamsa actually used by default (Lahiri per schema) which materially changes KP results.

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 clauses plus metadata tags; the payload description is front-loaded and every element is informative. It is not padded, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the guidance noted above.

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 prose, but a 15-parameter chart computation with 33% coverage and no usage routing is under-specified. Most importantly, a KP tool whose default ayanamsa is Lahiri (schema default) rather than KP/Krishnamurti never warns the agent, which can silently produce wrong KP chains.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, yet it provides zero parameter-level guidance. The schema leaves city, date, time, name, latitude, longitude, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and ayanamsaId undocumented, including the KP-critical choice of ayanamsa.

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?

Names the resource (per-planet positions) and enumerates exactly what is returned: sidereal longitude, KP chain (sign/star/sub/sub-sub) and Placidus house. This distinguishes it from KP cusp/sub-lord siblings, though those siblings are never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"Convenience layout for KP analyses" implies when it is appropriate but states no prerequisites, no when-not condition, and does not point to kp_cusps, kp_sub_lords or kp_asc_sub as alternatives. An agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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