KP: Planet cuspal positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context – endpoint, required inputs, and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost – but omits default assumptions (Lahiri ayanamsa, house system P) and never says whether the output is forced sidereal despite the zodiacType parameter.

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 payload sentence is front-loaded and dense with real information, and the bracketed metadata block is scannable. Slight waste in repeating the required fields already enforced by the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the cost/endpoint lines are helpful. But for a 13-parameter tool at 23% schema coverage, the description leaves several meaningful knobs unexplained and arguably misleads by fixing 'Placidus' when houseSystem is a free parameter.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The four required parameters are simply repeated from the schema's required list, and the meaningful choices (ayanamsa vs ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone vs timezoneOffset) get no treatment.

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 resource and the exact payload: per-planet sidereal longitude, the KP sign/star/sub/sub-sub chain, and the occupied house. That is enough to tell it apart from astroway_vedic_kp_cusps or astroway_western_planets, though it never explicitly names a sibling it differs from.

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?

'Convenience layout for KP analyses' hints at a domain but gives no when-to-use rule, no exclusion, and no routing to the many near neighbours (kp_cusps, kp_sub_lords, kp_sub_sub_lord, kp_significators). An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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