KP Chart

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

Annotations already flag readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious caveats: ayanamsa choice is not enforced locally and mismatched settings still post upstream, and time='00:00' is accepted without warning. This goes beyond structured fields and warns about edge cases that could corrupt interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into short labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH). Every section adds distinct value and no sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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, rich input schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining context: workflow position, sibling distinctions, input edge cases, and a link to the full output/error contract. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful parameter-level caveats beyond the schema, such as that time='00:00' is accepted without warning and ayanamsa mismatches are not locally validated; it also connects BirthData to the output without restating schema text.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: builds a KP natal chart with sub-lords on grahas and twelve cusps from BirthData. It also explicitly disambiguates from asterwise_get_natal_chart ('classical bundle without KP sub-lords') and asterwise_get_kp_ruling_planets ('live moment rulers, not natal cusps'), making the tool's identity clear.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names sibling tools and states the contrast, and the WORKFLOW section says this tool precedes asterwise_get_kp_significators for house-level significator chains. It also gives a BEFORE recommendation to cross-check birth records, which helps agents decide when results are trustworthy.

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