divine_get_kp_planetary_sub

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output-content context (star lord and sub lord) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or response pagination. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds output detail and use context. Everything 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 an output schema present, the return values are presumably documented there, so the description does not need to detail them further. The description, combined with the well-covered input schema and rich annotations, gives an agent sufficient information to call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about how this differs from nearby KP siblings, but overall it is complete enough.

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%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only states the overall output. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full parameter meaning.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Get KP Planetary Sub Lords') and specifies scope ('for all planets'). It also clarifies the actual output ('star lord and sub lord'), which distinguishes it from position-focused siblings like divine_get_kp_planetary_positions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for KP-based event prediction ('essential for KP-based event prediction'), giving a clear context. However, it offers no exclusions, prerequites, or guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as divine_get_kp_cuspal_sub or divine_get_sub_planet_positions.

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