KP Significators

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is known. The description adds that it computes and returns house tables plus planet-tier reverse indexes, providing useful context, but it does not describe output details or potential side effects beyond what the annotations convey.

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 direct and free of filler, combining the core purpose, workflow prerequisite, and disambiguation in a compact structure. Each sentence serves a distinct informative purpose, and the optional 'Full output and error contract' link is a reasonable addition rather than unnecessary bloat.

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?

Given the nested birth object and three parameters, the description plus full schema coverage provides all necessary operational context. It includes the recommended preceding workflow, clarifies sibling distinctions, summarizes the return content, and references the full output/error contract, making the tool self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including nested birth fields, house_number, and response_format. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, merely restating optionality of house_number and the input source, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding above the baseline.

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 specific verb ('Computes'), a precise resource ('KP significator chains'), and a clear scope ('for all houses or one optional house from BirthData'). It also names the primary sibling tools to avoid confusion with, making the tool's unique purpose immediately identifiable.

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 workflow section explicitly recommends calling asterwise_get_kp_chart before this tool to establish cusps, giving clear when-to-use direction. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section further clarifies how this tool differs from related KP and natal chart tools, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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