KP: Sub-sub-lord lookup

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 useful non-schema context: endpoint path and a 20-credit Tier 2 cost, which matters for an agent budgeting calls. It does not describe determinism or output shape, so it adds value but not richness.

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?

Two purposeful sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by a compact metadata block (group/endpoint/required/cost) that is scanned not parsed as prose. No filler sentences; the formatting lines are utilitarian rather than verbose.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the cost, endpoint and required parameter are all disclosed. For a one-parameter pure computation this is essentially complete; only the missing sibling routing keeps it below top marks.

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 0% and the single parameter is a bare number, but the description supplies the key semantic the schema lacks: that the value is a sidereal longitude in degrees spanning 0..360. That sidereal qualification is non-obvious and materially changes interpretation versus a tropical longitude.

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 specific verb (returns) and a precisely named resource (the full sub-lord chain: sign/star/sub/sub-sub) with its input domain (0..360 sidereal longitude). It is distinguishable from KP siblings such as kp_sub_lords or kp_cusps, though it never explicitly names them as alternatives.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for transit-trigger and dasha-bhukti exact-moment analysis' gives implied usage context, but there are no explicit instructions on when to pick this over astroway_vedic_kp_sub_lords or astroway_vedic_kp_cusps, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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