KP — Ascendant sub-lord

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the tool computes a single value based on a birth chart and references a specific astrological system. However, no details on error handling or what happens with invalid inputs are given.

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 description is relatively short and front-loaded with the key purpose. The example request body is helpful, though the group label '[Group: Vedic]' adds marginal value. Overall, it is concise but not overly terse.

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 11 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return value format, parameter constraints, or how to handle optional parameters. The example shows basic parameters but omits others like 'houseSystem' or 'zodiacType', leaving the agent without complete guidance.

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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter beyond the example request body. For example, the meaning of 'houseSystem', 'zodiacType', or 'ayanamsaId' is not clarified, requiring the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool computes the KP ascendant sub-lord, the 'ruling indicator' for primary motivation and life direction. It references K.S. Krishnamurti's work and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vedic_kp_sub_lords by focusing specifically on the ascendant.

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 description implies the tool is used for determining the ascendant sub-lord but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like vedic_kp_cusps or vedic_kp_sub_lords. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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