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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds the credit cost and the domain semantics of the three tiers, which is useful interpretive context, but it says nothing about what the response contains or how results are scoped.

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 definition is front-loaded and dense with no filler; the group and cost tags are compact metadata. The single explanatory sentence does a lot of work, though the tier definitions could be slightly tightened.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter or scoping guidance leaves the definition thin.

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% across 15 parameters, and the description adds no parameter guidance at all — not even the required date/time/latitude/longitude or the KP-relevant ayanamsa/houseSystem choices. 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 a specific resource (KP significator hierarchy per planet) and defines the three tiers precisely, so an agent knows this computes KP significators rather than something else. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling KP tools (kp_sub_lords, kp_ruling_planets, kp_cusps), so it stops short of a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer that this belongs to the KP family purely from the name; nothing in the text says when this is preferred over kp_sub_lords or kp_planet_cuspal_position.

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