KP — Sub-sub-lord lookup

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. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond these annotations, such as authentication needs or edge-case behavior. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences plus an example request, front-loaded with the key action and output. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.

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?

For a simple parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input range, and usage context. However, it lacks detail on the output structure (e.g., format of the chain), which would help the agent understand the response.

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 carries full burden for parameter semantics. It provides the range (0..360) and an example, but does not explain what 'longitude' represents (e.g., planetary position, cusp). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 it returns the full sub-lord chain for a given longitude, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like vedic_kp_sub_lords, which may also return sub-lord data.

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 explicitly mentions use cases: 'transit-trigger and dasha-bhukti exact-moment analysis.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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