KP — Horary chart (1..249)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds value by detailing the output content (ASC longitude + sub-lord chain) and clarifying that the horary moment is the call moment passed in the body. It also provides an example request. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences plus an example and group tag. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose. The example is helpful. Minor redundancy: 'given a number 1..249' is clear but could be integrated. Overall efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description only gives a high-level output description ('ASC longitude + sub-lord chain'). It does not specify the structure of the response, what format the data is in, or how to interpret the sub-lord chain. The tool has 6 required parameters but no explanation of their significance for the horary calculation. Incomplete for an agent to reliably use without additional knowledge.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the 7 parameters beyond showing them in an example. Required parameters like date, time, timezoneOffset, latitude, longitude are not described semantically. For a horary number lookup, location and time are crucial but their roles are unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'KP horary number lookup' with specific verb and resource. It specifies input range (1-249) and output (canonical KP-table ASC longitude + sub-lord chain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vedic_kp_asc_sub which returns only ASC sub-lord, and vedic_kp_cusps which returns cusps. The purpose is highly specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or differentiate from other KP tools in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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