KP: Part of Fortune

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds what they cannot: the endpoint, the exact required inputs, and a concrete cost of 20 credits (Tier 2), which matters for a paid computation. It stops short of describing output structure or precision, but the credit cost and formula are meaningful value-adds.

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 formula is front-loaded in the first clause, and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) is dense and useful rather than padding. Slightly compressed but no wasted sentences.

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 not be explained, and the mention of the sub-lord chain is a helpful hint. But for a 13-parameter tool, the description omits which ayanamsa/house-system settings make the result authentically KP (defaults are Lahiri and 'P'), leaving an agent likely to call it with wrong configuration.

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?

The description only restates the four required parameters already listed in the schema and says nothing about the nine optional ones. Critically, the cryptic houseSystem single-letter codes (P, K, R, E…), zodiacType, cosmogram, and the ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId duality get no guidance, despite schema coverage of only 23%.

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 gives a precise verb-like computation: the Part of Fortune with the explicit day/night formula, plus the KP-specific addition of a sub-lord chain. That makes the output distinguishable from generic Lot-of-Fortune calculators in the sibling list (e.g. astroway_aspects_arabic_parts, hellenistic lots tools) even though those siblings are never named.

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?

'Sub-lord chain attached for KP-style usage' implies the Vedic/KP context, and the [Required] line implies the inputs needed, but there is no statement of when to choose this over the Arabic-parts or Hellenistic lot tools that compute the same point. Usage must be inferred from the group tag.

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