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 summary mode returns aggregate counts, top mode includes the N strongest transits with dates, and full mode can produce multi-MB payloads and risk upstream timeouts. It also hints at the iterative workflow. This is solid transparency for a tool of this complexity.

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 well-structured: purpose in one sentence, mode usage in the second, and workflow in the third. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's 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 that an output schema exists (return values covered), the description covers the main usage aspects: purpose, mode selection, warnings about full mode, and a suggested workflow. It lacks detailed parameter explanations, but the schema and existing descriptions partially fill that gap. Overall, it is complete enough for a typical agent to select and invoke the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 11%, and the description text does not compensate for most parameters. It briefly mentions modes and the 'ranges over a year' concept, but the start/end date parameters, data object, and max_results are not explained in the narrative. The mode parameter is explained, but other critical parameters remain underspecified.

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 opens with a specific use case: 'Use when you need to know which transits shape a period for a natal chart.' It clearly states the tool's function (transit search) and output (aggregate counts by body and aspect type). It also differentiates from generic transit tools by referencing period and modes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use when...') and provides mode-specific guidance: use mode='top' for narrative material, and mode='full' only when genuinely needed due to payload size and timeout risk. It also suggests a follow-up workflow (summary → top). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like current_transits, but the context is clear enough.

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