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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the day/night branch that governs the result, the fact that a KP sub-lord chain is attached to the output, and the 20-credit Tier 2 cost — none of which the annotations or schema convey.

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 leads with the substance — the point name and its formula — before the bracketed metadata block, and nothing is padded. The Group/Endpoint lines are mildly boilerplate but compact and useful for cost/route awareness.

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 shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, for a 15-parameter tool with one-third schema coverage, the description leaves the configuration parameters (house system, zodiac type, ayanamsa, compact-mode options) entirely to the schema, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. Listing 'Required: date, time, latitude, longitude' merely restates the schema's required array and adds no meaning for the eleven other fields (houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsa, precision, cosmogram, etc.).

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 computed point and even gives the exact formula (ASC + Moon − Sun for day births, reversed at night), so an agent knows precisely what this endpoint produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from KP siblings like kp_asc_sub or kp_cusps, but the named artifact is unambiguous.

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 guidance and no named alternative among the many KP and Vedic sibling tools. The phrase 'for KP-style usage' hints at the applicable school but does not tell the agent when this computation is the right call versus kp_cusps or kp_sub_lords.

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