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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, the group, and the POST endpoint — cost is material for an agent deciding whether to call it. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 substantive content is front-loaded in a single dense sentence that defines the three tiers, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block that is easy to scan. Nothing is padded, though the source citation (K.S. Krishnamurti Reader IV) is scholarly color rather than actionable instruction.

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, and required inputs plus cost are stated. For a 15-parameter KP endpoint, however, the description leaves a real correctness gap: it never signals that KP significators conventionally require the KP/Krishnamurti ayanamsa and a KP-appropriate house system, so an agent could invoke it with defaults and produce non-KP results.

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. It echoes the four required names already present in the schema's `required` array, but says nothing about the choices that materially change KP output — ayanamsa (krishnamurti/kp), houseSystem, zodiacType, or the `fields`/`precision` compact-mode options.

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 computation (KP significator hierarchy per planet) and even defines the three tiers operationally — primary from the star-lord's houses, secondary from the planet's own, tertiary from the sign-lord's. That is far more specific than a restated title. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes this output from adjacent KP tools such as kp_sub_lords, kp_ruling_planets, or kp_planet_cuspal_position, so an agent must guess which KP artifact it wants.

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 statement, no when-not-to, and no named alternative among the many KP siblings. The bracketed block lists required inputs and cost but gives no selection guidance. An agent learns what the tool computes, not when it should be preferred over a different KP endpoint.

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