KP — Transit positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns positions with KP sub-lord chain, which is useful beyond annotations, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, default values) 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 two sentences and a JSON example. It front-loads the core function. The group label '[Group: Vedic]' is slightly redundant but not harmful. The example adds value. Overall efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (KP sub-lord chain), the description covers basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on what the sub-lord chain is, how ayanamsaId affects results, or the output structure. An agent might need to infer the return format.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions `targetDate` (not a parameter name) and provides an example with date, time, timezoneOffset. However, it does not explain ayanamsaId or clarify that 'targetDate' is a concept, not a parameter. The example is helpful but incomplete.

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 sidereal positions of all 9 grahas with KP sub-lord chain for a target date. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'KP transit-timing' and mentioning the sub-lord chain, which is unique among the many vedic tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use for KP transit-timing.' This helps the agent understand when to invoke this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or explicitly compare to sibling tools like transits or vedic_kp_cusps.

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