divine_get_kp_planetary_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the calculation system (KP ayanamsha) and the exact output components (sign lord, star lord, sub lord), which is not redundant with 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most decision-relevant technical detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description does not need to repeat structured information. It covers the key semantic differentiator (KP ayanamsha and lord levels), and the remaining gaps are mostly explicit sibling-routing guidance, which is more a usage-guideline concern.

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 every parameter, including the nested birth-detail fields, has an example and description. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get KP Planetary Positions for a birth chart'. It further clarifies the distinguishing detail—KP ayanamsha with sign lord, star lord, and sub lord—so it is clearly separable from generic planetary position tools like divine_get_planetary_positions.

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 gives a clear context: this is for birth charts and uses the KP system. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the KP terminology and lord-level outputs imply the intended use case well enough for an agent to route correctly among similar sibling tools.

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