KP — Part of Fortune

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe read behavior. Description adds formula details and KP-style context. Does not contradict annotations; the sub-lord chain mention provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus group tag and example. Formula is front-loaded, essential info immediately clear. No redundant words.

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?

Despite annotations, lacks output schema description. Does not explain what the response contains (e.g., coordinates, sub-lord details, sign/degree). For 11 parameters, more context on inputs and expected output is needed.

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 has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. Only provides an example JSON body without field explanations, leaving the agent to infer from names and types.

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?

Clearly states the tool computes the Part of Fortune (Lot of Fortune) with the exact formula for day/night birth and specifies KP-style sub-lord chain usage. Distinguishes from sibling vedic_kp_* tools by naming the specific astrological point.

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?

Implies use for KP Part of Fortune calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., arabic_parts, vedic_kp_cusps). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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