KP: Ascendant sub-lord

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema facts — endpoint path and 20-credit Tier 2 cost — but omits a meaningful behavioral caveat: this is a KP calculation while the schema defaults ayanamsa to Lahiri when omitted, which is not mentioned.

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?

Purpose and interpretive framing are front-loaded in the first sentence, with structured metadata after. The bracketed tags are slightly noisy but each carries usable information (endpoint, required inputs, cost).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 13-parameter astrological calculation at 23% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on ayanamsa, house system, or timezone handling leaves the agent under-equipped to call it 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 coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields already in the schema and says nothing about ayanamsa selection for a KP chart, houseSystem, or timezone vs timezoneOffset interaction.

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?

Names a specific computed quantity (the Ascendant sub-lord) and gives its interpretive meaning, which is more than a restatement of the title. It implicitly separates itself from generic sub-lord siblings by scoping to the Ascendant, but never names the alternatives (kp_sub_lords, kp_sub_sub_lord) an agent must choose between.

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?

No statement of when to use this rather than another KP endpoint, or of prerequisites/preconditions. The bracketed [Required: ...] and [Cost: ...] lines are metadata, not usage guidance.

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