KP: Sub-lords (cusps + planets)

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 needs no restatement. The description usefully adds the credit cost (20, Tier 2) and the endpoint/required-parameter line, but says nothing about output shape beyond 'table' or about how ayanamsa/house settings alter results.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with no filler; the bracketed metadata lines are terse and scannable. Slightly cluttered by five separate bracketed lines, but nothing is redundant.

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 safety. However, for a 13-parameter KP chart request the description omits the one thing that matters for correctness — which ayanamsa/house settings produce valid KP sub-lords — leaving the agent to guess among many enum options.

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. It repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema and leaves ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram and timezone behavior unexplained — notably no hint that a KP tool should use the 'kp' or 'krishnamurti' ayanamsa.

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?

States a concrete artifact: a KP sub-lord chain table covering every cusp and every planet (lagna, 9 grahas including Ketu). The verb+resource is specific and the scope ('full ... at a glance') hints at comprehensiveness versus narrower KP siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over astroway_vedic_kp_cusps, astroway_vedic_kp_sub_sub_lord, or astroway_vedic_kp_significators — all of which live in the same KP family. The only non-purpose content is endpoint metadata and a cost note, which is not usage routing.

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