divine_get_kp_cuspal_sub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is organized by house cusp and explains the role of sub lords in KP predictions, but it does not disclose response structure, pagination, or any edge cases. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage but not rich.

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 description is two short sentences plus a one-line summary, with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information about scope, output content, or interpretational value, with no filler.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the output granularity (all house cusps), and the purpose. A minor gap is that it does not differentiate among the closely related KP cuspal tools, but that is a usage-guidance concern rather than a completeness gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The tool description says nothing about the birth-detail parameters, but the nested KundliInput schema provides detailed descriptions for every field (day, month, year, hour, min, lat, lon, etc.). Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, the tool description does not need to repeat it; the single 'params' argument is also obvious from the schema structure.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get KP Cuspal Sub Lords for all house cusps,' and clarifies that the tool returns the sub lord of each house cusp, which is a concrete deliverable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar KP siblings like divine_get_kp_cuspal or divine_get_kp_cuspal_significator, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related KP tools (e.g., kp_cuspal_significator, kp_planetary_sub, kp_cuspal). The phrase 'KP-based predictions' hints at a general use case but provides no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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