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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses the result cap (60 events), the window cap (92 days), the truncation policy ('the most significant kept when there are more'), the content types returned, and a tier requirement ('API Pro'). Those are exactly the traits annotations cannot express and they materially change how an agent plans calls.

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 front-loaded sentences; the return payload and its limits come first, then routing. Slightly dense clause stacking in the first sentence, but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return semantics — it does by enumerating aspects/ingresses/stations and the cap. It omits what happens when the window exceeds 92 days and any pagination/ordering detail, which is a minor but real gap.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does so partially — it restates the 92-day window but never clarifies 'from'/'to' semantics, the 30-day default, or that 'birth' is the required object. The nested birth fields are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — returns exact transit-to-natal aspects by date, plus sign ingresses and stations — and names the sibling it differs from (daily_transits). An agent can distinguish it from every other astrology sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('forecasts over weeks or months (a year is four windows)') and an explicit alternative with the selecting condition ('for a single day use daily_transits'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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