KP: Horary chart (1..249)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: latitudes beyond 66.5 are refused, the horary number maps through a 249-entry table with edge-sub splitting, and the endpoint/cost (20 credits, Tier 2) is stated.

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 key fact (number fixes the ascendant) is front-loaded, and the latitude refusal is placed at the end where it stands out. The ascendantAt sentence largely restates the schema's own description, which is the only wasted space.

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 annotations cover safety. Still, for a 10-parameter tool with 5 required inputs, the description leaves the temporal semantics ambiguous (is date/time the question moment or the cast moment?) and gives no guidance on the ayanamsa choice that materially changes the chart.

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?

With 40% schema coverage and 10 parameters, the description carries real weight: it constrains latitude to ±66.5 (narrower than the schema's ±90) and explains horaryNumber and ascendantAt. But it says nothing about the format or meaning of date/time, which are required, nor that the default ayanamsa is Lahiri while KP practice normally uses the 'kp' school — a substantive omission for this tool.

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 names a specific artifact — a KP number chart driven by a 1..249 horary number — and explains how the number fixes the sidereal ascendant, which distinguishes it from the Western horary sibling. It never explicitly contrasts itself with astroway_horary_horary or the other astroway_vedic_kp_* tools, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'number'.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you have a KP horary number between 1 and 249 and a question moment. There is no statement of when to prefer it over astroway_horary_horary or the KP cusp/sub-lord tools, and no prerequisites beyond the method itself.

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