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

Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, idempotent profile, so the description's main added value is the cost disclosure (20 credits, Tier 2) and the endpoint, plus the fact that the result is the active phase plus a KP sub-lord chain. That credit cost is genuinely useful behavioural context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences lead with the core purpose and return, followed by compact metadata tags. Nothing is wasted, though the tag lines are bookkeeping rather than description content.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description needs only to orient the agent, which it does. Its only shortfall is not distinguishing this dosha endpoint from the broader kp_full aggregation option.

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% and the body/timezone/houseSystem semantics are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description only names `targetDate` in passing without adding format or constraint detail, so the 3 baseline 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 the specific resource (Sade Sati state) and the computation basis (Saturn transit through 12th/1st/2nd from natal Moon over 7.5y), plus what is returned (active phase with KP Saturn sub-lord chain). This clearly separates it from the sibling dosha tools like kp_kalasarpa, kp_kemadruma and kp_manglik, which address entirely different afflictions.

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 the tool is used when a Sade Sati assessment for a given date is wanted, and the targetDate framing makes that inference easy, but it never states prerequisites or points to alternatives such as kp_full for a combined dosha read. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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