KP — Placidus cusps with sub-lord chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, establishing safe read-only behavior. The description adds the specific sub-lord chain method and reference to Krishnamurti, which is useful for understanding the calculation but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 concise, with the key output stated upfront. The group label '[Group: Vedic]' and example are useful. However, the example could be integrated more seamlessly, and some text like 'KP-canonical' might be slightly redundant with the title. Overall, it's well-structured for its length.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond '12 cusps with sub-lord chain', nor does it specify the return structure (e.g., degrees, zodiac positions, sub-lord details). Agents may struggle to interpret results without additional documentation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters individually. It only provides an example request body with some parameters filled (date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude) but does not clarify the purpose or constraints of optional parameters like houseSystem, name, city, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, or cosmogram. The example helps but is insufficient for 11 parameters.

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 12 Placidus cusps with a full sub-lord chain, specifying the methodology (K.S. Krishnamurti 1971). The title reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vedic_kp_asc_sub or vedic_kp_horary, though the focus on cusps is distinctive.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides an example request, which hints at required parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Agents lack direction for selection.

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