KP — Significators (primary/secondary/tertiary)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the calculation logic (star-lord, planet, sign-lord) and citing the source (K.S. Krishnamurti Reader IV). This goes beyond annotations by explaining how results are derived.

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 core definition. It includes a structured example and a group tag. However, the technical jargon (star-lord, sign-lord) may reduce clarity for non-experts. Still, it is concise and each sentence adds value.

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 many parameters and no output schema, the description fails to cover return format, error handling, or how the output should be interpreted. It only explains the significator hierarchy. The tool's complexity (11 parameters, no parameter descriptions) demands more context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0% description coverage, leaving all 11 parameters undocumented. The description provides a single example request but does not explain individual parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, or ayanamsaId. The agent lacks semantic understanding of optional parameters, making it prone to misuse.

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 'KP significator hierarchy per planet' and explains the three levels (primary, secondary, tertiary). This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from other vedic_kp_* tools, such as vedic_kp_asc_sub or vedic_kp_cusps, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it computes and provides an example request, but does not indicate scenarios, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without usage context.

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