Western Astrology MCP Server by RoxyAPI

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the forecast methodology and lists returned fields, but does not disclose operational aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, caching behavior, or whether requests are tracked.

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 about 100 words and includes unnecessary keyword stuffing at the end ('Daily horoscope API, zodiac forecast, sun sign horoscope, astrology prediction'). While the main content is clear, it could be more concise.

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 lists the return fields (love, career, etc.) and mentions transit details, which is helpful. However, it does not specify data types or structure of the response fields, leaving some uncertainty.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minor context (date for editorial scheduling, sign case-insensitivity) but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema.

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 'Get the daily horoscope for any zodiac sign' and specifies it is based on real-time planetary transits with whole-sign house positions, providing unique content per sign. It lists return fields (love, career, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings (monthly/weekly 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 mentions support for a date parameter for editorial scheduling, implying future/past dates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (monthly/weekly horoscope). No when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the output includes week-by-week breakdowns and key dates from ephemeris calculations. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only GET endpoint, the behavioral insight is adequate.

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 somewhat verbose, with three full sentences plus a list of keyword tags at the end. The key info is front-loaded, but the latter sentences and tags are repetitive and unnecessary. Could be trimmed to one or two sentences without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return structure: week-by-week breakdown, key dates, and coverage areas (love, career, health, finance). It does not detail pagination or limits, but for a simple monthly forecast, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds useful context: language fallback behavior (returns English if translation unavailable) and case-insensitivity for sign. This goes beyond what the schema provides, adding value 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 title and first sentence clearly state that the tool provides a monthly horoscope for any zodiac sign with a week-by-week breakdown and key dates like new moons and full moons. The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like daily and weekly horoscopes, and the keyword tags reinforce the purpose.

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 implies use for monthly forecasts covering love, career, health, and finance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs daily/weekly/moon phase alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions or explicit guidance are missing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that forecasts are based on planetary transits and house-based content, but does not mention typical behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or possible errors. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 has two sentences, but the second sentence includes keyword stuffing ('Weekly horoscope API, zodiac weekly forecast, astrology weekly prediction') that adds no value. Could be more concise.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, period, and content areas, but lacks information about output format, error handling, or any constraints. For a simple 2-parameter tool, it is mostly adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions—it simply restates 'any zodiac sign' and lists content categories.

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 gets a weekly horoscope for a zodiac sign, specifies the 7-day period, and lists included content (love, career, health, finance, lucky days, numbers, compatible signs). It distinguishes from daily and monthly horoscope siblings through the title and explicit 'weekly' mention.

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 implies weekly usage but does not explicitly advise when to use this over daily or monthly horoscope tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output includes moon phase and illumination for each day, which is basic. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, data source, or error handling for invalid inputs. The description is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary action and scope, and the second provides example use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return format. It mentions 'moon phase and illumination' but does not provide specifics (e.g., phase names, illumination percentage, array structure). The agent lacks critical information to interpret the result, making the description incomplete for a tool without output schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like year, month, and lang. It does not explain format or restrictions beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 retrieves a complete lunar calendar for a month, with specific detail on moon phase and illumination for each day. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_astrology_moon_phase_current' and 'get_astrology_moon_phase_upcoming' by the scope (full month vs single day or upcoming events).

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 suggests use cases ('perfect for creating moon phase calendars, lunar planners, and astrology event schedules') and implicitly indicates the tool is for monthly planning. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with other moon phase tools, missing an opportunity to guide the agent when to use this versus current/upcoming tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what data is returned but omits any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, or side effects. Since it's a read operation, this is a minor gap.

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 sentences with front-loaded information. The first sentence lists return values, the second lists phase names and use cases. Concise and well-structured, though could be slightly more organized with bullet points.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values including exact phase names. Parameters are well-documented in schema and description. For a read-only current data tool, the description is fairly complete.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema, e.g., noting that time affects phase precision due to moon movement. This adds value without redundancy.

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 gets current moon phase with specific attributes like illumination, lunar age, zodiac sign, and distance. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_astrology_moon_phase_calendar_year_month and get_astrology_moon_phase_upcoming by focusing on the current phase.

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 lists use cases like moon tracking apps and gardening by moon phase, implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output (dates and phase names) but does not disclose any potential side effects (none expected for a GET), rate limits, authentication needs, timezone handling, or error behavior. The transparency is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the function, and the second provides use cases. It is front-loaded with essential information without any unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the purpose adequately. However, it could be improved by briefly hinting at the return format structure, as there is no output schema. Still, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 title and description clearly state it retrieves upcoming moon phase transitions, explicitly listing the phases (New Moon, First Quarter, Full Moon, Last Quarter) and providing concrete use cases (lunar event calendars, widgets, astrology planning). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_astrology_moon_phase_current and get_astrology_moon_phase_calendar_year_month.

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 mentions use cases but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_astrology_moon_phase_current (for current phase) or get_astrology_moon_phase_calendar_year_month (for a specific month/year). No explicit when-not-to or exclusion criteria are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a GET-like tool, the description should at least imply safety.

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: the first defines the core functionality and the second provides use cases and alternative guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description specifies the exact fields returned (name, symbol, tagline, etc.) and the number of items (14). It could mention whether the response format is a JSON array, but the intent is clear. With no output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (lang) with full schema coverage (100%). The schema already includes description, default, and example. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 returns all 14 astrological bodies with essential meanings, including specific fields like name, symbol, tagline, category, ruling sign, and short descriptions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_astrology_planet_meanings_id by noting that the ID version provides complete profiles.

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?

Description explicitly provides use cases (astrology reference apps, planet meaning widgets, etc.) and directs to the ID sibling for detailed profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and covers return structure (symbol, tagline, category, etc.), language handling (fallback to English), and input flexibility (case-insensitive). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-like operation, this is adequate.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, input, output, and usage. It is front-loaded with the main action. While comprehensive, every sentence adds value, making it well-structured without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (many return fields) and no output schema, the description fully explains the return content (symbol, tagline, category, etc.), input parameters, language support, and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'id' accepts lowercase IDs or case-insensitive names with examples, and details the 'lang' fallback behavior. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 action ('Retrieve comprehensive planet interpretation') and the resource ('any astrological planet'), with specific input format (lowercase ID or case-insensitive name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_astrology_planet_meanings (likely a list) and other planet-related 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 specific use cases: 'birth chart readings, planet meaning lookups, astrology education, natal chart interpretation, transit meanings, planetary symbolism reference, and keyword-based interpretations.' It implies when to use this tool (individual planet details) vs. a list, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains exactly what data is returned and covers the optional lang parameter's default and fallback behavior, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool returns, its use cases, and a pointer to a sibling tool. No wordiness or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers all necessary information: data returned, usage guidance, and alternative tool for detailed profiles.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining the lang parameter: supported languages, default value, and behavior for unsupported translations. This goes beyond the schema's enum definition.

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 returns all 12 tropical zodiac signs with essential information, and explicitly lists the data fields (name, symbol, element, date ranges, short descriptions). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_astrology_signs_id which provides individual sign profiles.

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 use cases (zodiac sign lists, horoscope widgets, birth chart calculators, etc.) and directs users to the sibling tool for more detailed profiles, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior for ID input (case-insensitive) and lang parameter (default to English, unsupported languages return English). However, it does not disclose error handling for invalid IDs or rate limits, which are minor gaps for a read tool.

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 a single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by detailed output list. It is efficient but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and the tool's complexity (returns a detailed profile), the description fully enumerates the returned fields (element, modality, etc.) and usage scenarios. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: e.g., 'case-insensitive name' for id, and 'Languages without translations yet return English' for lang. This enhances understanding 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 retrieves comprehensive zodiac sign information for a single sign using ID or name, with a specific list of returned data. It distinguishes from sibling get_astrology_signs (which likely lists all signs) by focusing on a single sign's profile.

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 clear usage contexts like horoscope readings and zodiac compatibility checks, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_astrology_signs for listing all signs. The guidance is strong but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the calculation method (arc from Ascendant, day/night formula), output fields (zodiac sign, degree, longitude, arc, interpretation), and that it uses tropical positions. This is thorough but omits potential side effects or authentication needs.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: lists parts, explains calculation, describes output, and states audience. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity of calculating seven Hermetic lots and no output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned and the underlying logic. It could be more detailed about the arc formula but is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions for each parameter are detailed. The tool description adds context about sect determination via houseSystem, but overall adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies the exact function: calculate the seven Hermetic lots, listing each by name. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which cover horoscopes, moon phases, aspects, etc., none of which compute Arabic lots.

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 states it is for Hellenistic and traditional astrology apps and that no astronomy expertise is needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, though siblings differ sufficiently.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses output details (tightness score, dissociate flag, interpretation) and disambiguation rules (suppression of contained patterns). It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects, but the tool is read-only and non-destructive.

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 front-loaded with core purpose and lists outputs, disambiguation, and use cases in a logical order. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but effective for the complexity.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, pattern detection logic), the description covers purpose, output details, disambiguation, and use cases. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to call the tool, though orb handling could be mentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on output and behavior rather than parameters. 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Identify classical Western astrology multi-planet configurations in a birth chart.' It lists specific patterns (Grand Trine, Kite, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like post_astrology_aspects (individual aspects) and post_astrology_natal_chart (full chart) by focusing on multi-planet patterns.

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 states use cases ('personalized natal report engines, astrology chatbots, AI agents that interpret chart geometry, and editorial chart-pattern callouts'). It implies when to use (for pattern detection) and subtly differentiates from individual aspect analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns aspect type, angle, orb, applying/separating status, strength (0-100), and uses standard Western orbs. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but as a calculation tool, behavioral insight is adequate.

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?

Four sentences efficiently cover purpose, output, filtering, and use cases. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with action. Concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input format, output fields, filtering options, and standard orbs. It lacks mention of error handling or exact output structure, but is sufficiently complete for most usage scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the full set of 14 bodies, listing major and minor aspects, and clarifying filtering capabilities. It enhances understanding beyond individual parameter 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?

The description clearly states it calculates all major and minor aspects between planets for any date and time, listing aspect types and return fields. It differentiates from siblings like 'post_astrology_transit_aspects' by focusing on any date/time rather than transits, and from 'post_astrology_aspect_patterns' which detects patterns.

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 suggests usage in aspect tables, transit analysis, and pattern detection, but does not explicitly distinguish it from overlapping sibling tools like 'post_astrology_transit_aspects' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Implied usage is clear, but lacking explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly lists return data (sign, degree, house, speed, retrograde, interpretation) and clarifies it calculates natal positions. No destructive behavior implied, but rate limits or authentication needs are not mentioned. Still, it provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and resource; second sentence clarifies scope and distinguishes from sibling tools. Extremely 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The schema covers parameters completely, and the description adds behavioral context. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format, examples, defaults). It mentions 'birth moment' but that is already covered by the required parameters. No additional semantic value for parameters.

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 precisely states the tool calculates natal positions of the four classical asteroid goddesses (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta) for any birth moment. It clearly specifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like the natal chart endpoint that includes Chiron.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives by stating 'Chiron is available through the natal chart endpoint, so this endpoint stays focused on the four asteroid goddesses.' It also mentions use cases: 'natal reports and relationship astrology.'

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output (right ascension, declination, etc.) but omits error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences front-loading the core purpose and output details. No unnecessary words, each sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the main outputs (lines, coordinates, interpretation) without an output schema. Could specify format or sample count for curves, but sufficient for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'any birth moment' but does not elaborate on parameter details or constraints.

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 generates an astrocartography map with specific lines (MC, IC, Asc, Desc) for any birth moment, distinguishing it from other astrology tools like horoscopes or transits.

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 like post_astrology_relocation_chart or post_astrology_local_space. The description lacks scenarios or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description details what the tool returns (score, categories, narratives, archetype, aspects) but does not state behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or side effects. As a calculation tool, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.

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 a single paragraph of 4-5 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then listing key output components. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though it could be broken into bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview of the output content (score, categories, narratives, etc.) but does not specify the exact response structure or fields. Without an output schema, the agent may need to infer the JSON format, which is a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for person1 and person2, including timezone handling. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It does explain the meaning of the output categories, which indirectly helps understand parameter usage, but does not directly augment parameter semantics.

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 calculates a detailed compatibility score between two birth charts using Western synastry, specifying the 0-100 overall score, category breakdowns, and additional outputs like narratives and archetype classification. It is specific about the verb (calculate), resource (compatibility score), and method (inter-chart aspects). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool post_astrology_synastry, which may overlap.

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 no explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose statement alone, with no clear differentiation from similar sibling tools like post_astrology_synastry or post_astrology_composite_chart.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns composite positions, houses, and interpretation but does not mention if the operation is read-only, whether it stores data, or any side effects. The POST verb suggests creation but lacks clarity on data persistence.

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 contains redundant sentences (e.g., 'represents the relationship as a single entity' followed by specifics) and ends with irrelevant SEO keywords like 'Composite chart API, midpoint chart calculator'. This clutters the description and makes it less concise than needed.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and key return elements. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., both persons must have valid birth data), or output format details.

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 100% for all 4 parameters (including nested person objects and houseSystem), so the description need not add extra param info. The tool description adds no param-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 generates a composite chart by calculating midpoints between two natal charts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like synastry or compatibility score. It specifies the output includes planetary positions, house cusps, Ascendant, aspects, and relationship interpretation.

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 implies use for relationship analysis ('relationship astrology, couple chart analysis'), but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like synastry (chart overlay) or compatibility score. No when-not-to or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what is calculated and returned, but does not mention limitations, prerequisites (e.g., valid date range), or non-destructive nature. It adds some context like 'precessed ecliptic longitude' but falls short of full transparency.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with core functionality and specifics. Informative without excessive verbosity, though could potentially be trimmed slightly.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (positions, interpretations) and mentions key stars. It does not address error cases or what happens when no conjunctions are found, but overall provides sufficient context for selection and use.

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 coverage is 100% and description adds meaningful context for parameters like orb (explaining usage and range implications), date (connecting to planetary positions), lang (fallback behavior), and timezone (IANA resolution). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states it calculates tropical zodiac positions of major fixed stars and detects conjunctions to natal planets, Ascendant, and Midheaven, listing specific stars. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like natal chart or planetary 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 says it is 'a focused tool for natal reports that weigh Regulus, Spica, Aldebaran, Antares, and Algol against the chart,' implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but context from sibling names provides indirect guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the core behavior (calculating house cusps) and notes the critical importance of accurate time and location. However, it does not mention potential limitations, such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the calculation is purely server-side without side effects. The safety profile is implied but not detailed.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses two paragraphs: the first states the core function and output, the second provides usage examples and context. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrases. The structure effectively conveys key information quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and key parameters. It mentions the return includes all 12 house cusps, Ascendant, and MC, but does not detail the output structure or data types. For an educational tool, completeness is satisfactory, but additional information about response format would improve usability.

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 100%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds context beyond the schema, such as emphasizing that time is essential and explaining the 'all' option for comparing house systems. This extra information helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the basic type/format requirements.

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 calculates astrological house cusps using specified house systems. It specifies the output (all 12 house cusps, Ascendant, Midheaven) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on horoscopes, moon phases, or other astrological calculations.

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 context on when to use the tool, such as for astrology charts, house cusp tables, and educational tools. It suggests using the 'all' parameter to compare house systems. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly mention alternative sibling tools for other purposes, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the true apogee can shift sign and turn retrograde and that an interpretation is included. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially described.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear language. Every sentence adds value, explaining both variants and the return data without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complexity (two apogees, houses, interpretations) and no output schema, the description adequately details what is returned. It covers key aspects but does not address potential errors or edge cases. It is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides; it reinforces that the tool requires birth chart data and mentions house system, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly.

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 calculates Black Moon Lilith for a birth chart, specifying both mean and true apogee, and lists the returned data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specific to Lilith.

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 mentions it is built for natal astrology apps and AI agents exploring Lilith, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like the natal chart tool or when not to use it. Context is provided but no exclusions or comparisons.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns azimuth, altitude, compass direction, horizon status, and waypoints. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but the output is fully described.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph. It starts with the main purpose, then lists outputs, then usage cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description fully explains what is returned and the context of local space astrology. It compensates well for missing output schema by listing the return fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as why time is essential ('the local horizon rotates a full circle each day') and what latitude/longitude represent for the projection.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Generate a local space astrology map' and lists exact outputs (azimuth, altitude, compass direction, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like astrocartography or relocation charts by focusing on local horizon projection.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Ideal for relocation planning, directional astrology, and travel-direction maps.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus similar tools (e.g., post_astrology_astrocartography).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns (full tropical zodiac chart with positions, house cusps, aspects, etc.) and reveals the astronomical basis (Moon's sidereal orbit). However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions, or permissions needed, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 front-loads the main purpose and mechanism, but ends with a keyword-stuffed line ('Lunar return chart API, monthly horoscope forecast, Moon cycle chart, emotional astrology prediction.') that adds no new information and reduces conciseness. It could be trimmed without loss of meaning.

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?

Given 8 parameters (6 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, astronomical basis, and return content. It adds context about the Moon's 27.3-day orbit and the chart's emotional focus. Missing specifics on output format or error handling, but still fairly complete for a complex astrological tool.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema, such as mentioning the returnDate is approximate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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 generates a lunar return chart for any month, specifying the exact moment the transiting Moon returns to its natal ecliptic longitude. The title enhances clarity with 'Monthly emotional forecast with Moon cycle chart,' and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like solar return or daily horoscopes by emphasizing monthly forecasting.

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 explains that this is the primary technique for monthly astrological forecasting, implying use for emotional patterns and domestic focus. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like solar return for annual charts, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates using tropical zodiac, returns all bodies and house systems, and is verified against NASA JPL Horizons. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a non-destructive calculation tool, it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states core action and output, second lists components, third adds use cases and verification. Front-loaded with essential information, no wasted words.

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, so description compensates by listing all return components and customization options (house systems). It covers the main aspects and is sufficient for a calculation tool, though it does not specify response 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about house systems and returned bodies but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Calculate complete Western astrology natal chart (birth chart) with tropical zodiac' using specific verb and resource. It lists all returned components (14 celestial bodies, house cusps, aspects, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like composite or synastry charts.

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 when/when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided. However, the description implies use cases ('astrology apps, birth chart generators') and sibling tool names provide context. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Returns full tropical zodiac chart with all planetary positions, house cusps, and aspects' and mentions the search algorithm from approximateDate. However, it does not disclose whether the POST is read-only or if any data is persisted, nor does it mention auth needs or rate limits.

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 contains redundant phrases and keyword stuffing (e.g., 'Planetary return chart API, Saturn return calculator, Jupiter return chart, Mars return forecast') that do not add value. The first sentence is clear, but the rest is repetitive and unstructured, making it longer than necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the output (full chart with positions, houses, aspects) and the algorithm's behavior. It could be more structured but covers essential context for the agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds context for planet (periods and significance) and approximateDate (search starting point), but the schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters. The description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema.

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 generates a planetary return chart for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn, and explains what a planetary return is. It distinguishes from siblings like lunar return (post_astrology_lunar_return) and solar return (post_astrology_solar_return) by focusing specifically on planetary returns.

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 explains the significance of each planet's return (e.g., 'Saturn return is a major life milestone'), providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like solar or lunar returns, leaving usage guidance implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates positions (no side effects) and notes verification against NASA JPL Horizons, adding credibility. It does not detail rate limits or auth, but overall is transparent.

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 concise sentences: one functional statement and one use-cases sentence. It is front-loaded with key actions and has no unnecessary words.

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 should fully explain return values. It lists fields (longitude, latitude, sign, degree, speed, retrograde) but does not specify format (e.g., decimal degrees) or response structure. Adequate but slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter info beyond the schema. It mentions the 14 celestial bodies, which adds context, but does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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 identifies the tool as an ephemeris calculator for all 14 celestial bodies, listing specific outputs and use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., aspects, transits) by focusing on raw planetary positions.

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 states perfect use cases (transit tracking, ephemeris tables, astrology apps) but does not explicitly exclude when to use alternative tools for aspects or transits. However, given the sibling list, this is implied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation logic (completed year advances rising sign, whole sign profection for profected house, house system only for lord placement) and return structure. It does not mention any destructive actions or authentication needs, which are reasonable omissions for a read-only calculation tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core action and output. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose and method, second explains mechanics, third lists returns. No extraneous or redundant phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so concisely, listing age, profected house/sign, lord details, and interpretation. It does not cover error conditions, but that is acceptable for a well-defined calculation tool with clear input constraints (e.g., targetDate must be on or after birth date). The complexity of 8 parameters is handled without gaps.

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 100% with thorough parameter descriptions (e.g., each field's role in determining positions). The description adds no additional parameter-level explanation, which is acceptable given the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Therefore, baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates annual profection and lord of the year using a specific Hellenistic technique. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by precisely naming the output (age, profected house/sign, lord with placement, interpretation) and the method (whole sign profection from rising sign). The title and first sentence give a specific verb-context pair.

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 implies usage for any birth chart and target date, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling time lord tools (e.g., solar return, progressions). An agent would benefit from knowing when this technique is preferred over other dynamic forecast tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion or comparison statements.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the method (day-for-a-year key), outputs (sign, degree, house, motion, retrograde state, progressed Ascendant/Midheaven via Naibod arc), and timing role. It does not mention limitations or prerequisites but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 four sentences long with a clear structure: method, return details, headline markers, and keyword tags. It is efficient but the last sentence (tags) is somewhat redundant with the opening. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description comprehensively lists return elements (body, sign, degree, house, motion, retrograde state, Ascendant, Midheaven) and explains the calculation method. All 7 parameters are covered in the schema, and the description ties them to the tool's logic, making it complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the day-for-a-year key and the significance of progressed Sun/Moon, but does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., targetDate explanation is already in schema).

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 generates a secondary progressed chart using the day-for-a-year key, specifying the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'secondary progressed chart'. It lists specific outputs (progressed bodies, Ascendant, Midheaven) and highlights progressed Sun and Moon as headline timing markers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like natal chart or transits.

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 implies when to use: for secondary progressions and timing markers. It lists the tool as 'Secondary progressions API' and 'progressed chart calculator', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like transits or solar returns, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: planets keep positions, houses are recomputed, and fallback for polar circles. Lacks mention of authentication or error conditions, but covers the main behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with essential information. It is a bit lengthy but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but 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?

Given the complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description covers what the tool returns and its purpose. It explains the underlying logic and use cases, though a brief note on output format would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for some parameters (e.g., birthLatitude used for comparison), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own 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?

The description uses specific verbs like 'Calculate' and 'Returns' and clearly explains that planets keep their natal signs while houses and angles are recomputed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_astrology_natal_chart and post_astrology_astrocartography by focusing on relocation.

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 states it is built for 'relocation astrology readings, astrocartography style move planning, and travel charts,' providing clear use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like post_astrology_astrocartography or state when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool computes and returns data, and mentions 'no astronomy expertise needed' implying ease of use. However, it does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only or destructive, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences (plus a brief explanatory clause). It front-loads the primary action ('Calculate a solar arc directed chart'), explains the concept, lists outputs, and ends with use case. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (solar arc, directed points, plain language interpretation). It covers purpose, input requirements, and output. For a moderately complex tool, it provides sufficient context for basic usage, though it could mention error handling or prerequisites.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it mentions 'birth moment and target date' but the schema already describes those fields well). No extra clarity or constraints are added.

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 calculates a solar arc directed chart, explains what a solar arc is (secondary-progressed Sun minus natal Sun), and lists the output. It distinguishes from siblings like progressions by specifying the solar arc technique. The verb 'calculate' and noun 'solar arc directed chart' are specific.

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 says it's 'for predictive astrology apps timing major life events,' which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use solar arc vs. other timing techniques like progressions (another sibling tool) or transits. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the chart is location-sensitive and returns a full chart with positions and aspects. However, it does not mention error handling, performance implications, or any destructive behaviors. The description adds context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes redundant keyword phrases like 'Solar return chart API, annual horoscope forecast, birthday chart calculator, yearly astrology prediction, relocated solar return' that add length without value. It could be more concise.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (full chart with positions, house cusps, aspects, Ascendant, Midheaven) and highlights location sensitivity. Despite lacking output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output. Minor omissions like error conditions do not significantly detract.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description reiterates the location sensitivity, which is also in the schema, but adds no new parameter-level insights. Since schema coverage is high, baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a solar return chart for any year and explains its purpose as a foundational technique for annual forecasting. It mentions the chart includes planetary positions, house cusps, and aspects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like lunar return or transit charts, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies usage for annual astrological forecasting by stating it is 'the foundational technique for annual astrological forecasting,' but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lunar returns or transits. No exclusions or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool calculates synastry and lists outputs, but does not mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects such as data mutation or rate limits.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, front-loading the primary action. It efficiently covers purpose, outputs, and use cases without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of nested objects and no output schema, the description lists expected outputs (compatibility score, inter-aspects, etc.), which aids understanding. It lacks details on error handling or response structure but is reasonably complete.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (lang, person1, person2, houseSystem), including formats, examples, and meanings. The tool description adds overarching context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Calculate complete synastry (relationship compatibility) between two natal charts using Western tropical astrology' and lists specific outputs like compatibility score and inter-aspects. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on relationship compatibility analysis.

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 use cases: 'Perfect for dating apps, matrimonial sites, relationship counseling tools, and astrology compatibility features.' It gives context but does not explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools like post_astrology_compatibility_score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns aspect type, orb, applying/separating status, narrative interpretation, impact rating, and practical guidance. It does not mention any destructive behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a calculation tool.

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 fairly long and includes keyword stuffing at the end ('Transit aspects API, transit-to-natal analysis, predictive astrology, personalized transit forecast.'). While it starts with a clear sentence, the extra terms add redundancy and reduce conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (aspect type, orb, applying/separating, interpretation, impact, guidance). It covers the key output fields without needing an output schema.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining that the planets filter is 'useful for focusing on slow-moving outer planet transits' and describing when to use minStrength.

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 calculates transit-to-natal aspects with interpretations, strength ratings, and timing guidance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the /transits endpoint, and 'more detailed than the /transits endpoint' sets it apart from sibling tools like post_astrology_transits.

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 clear context by comparing to the /transits endpoint and mentioning filtering options for planets, aspect types, and strength. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the comparison is helpful for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return of 14 celestial bodies with signs, degrees, speeds, and transit aspects with orbs and status when a natal chart is provided. It also mentions default dates and times. Some details like error handling or rate limits are absent, but overall good coverage.

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 informative and well-structured, starting with core functionality, then detailing return values, and ending with use cases. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity with 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job. It covers what the tool returns (transit positions and optionally aspects), conditions (when natal chart is provided), and defaults, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining defaults (e.g., 'defaults to current date/time'), behavior for unsupported languages ('Languages without translations yet return English'), and timezone resolution ('IANA resolved to the DST-correct offset'), enriching the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('calculate') and names the resource ('planetary transits'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the optional natal chart comparison and the return of 14 celestial bodies, setting it apart from similar tools like post_astrology_transit_aspects.

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 states the tool is 'perfect for daily transit forecasts, aspect alerts, and personalized transit reports,' providing clear use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings, which could guide the agent better.

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