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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses non-obvious behavior: the retrograde section ignores the bodies parameter, uses its own ~1-year horizon, returns horizon as a separate field not comparable with window, and fast-body windows are shortened. It stops short of describing full request/response behavior but covers the important traps.

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 text is long but information-dense; each warning (fast bodies, retrograde independence, horizon) earns its place, and the lead sentence states the core purpose first. Some redundancy exists in the slow-body explanation, but the structure with sections and warnings is readable.

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 definition is complete about its most surprising behavior and the bodies parameter, and the output schema covers return values. But with no annotations and several unexplained input parameters (chart_id, geonameid, place, years, date), an agent cannot confidently construct a non-default request from the description alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It thoroughly explains the bodies enum and default, and touches on time (birth time optional), but date, lang, years, place, chart_id, and geonameid are left unexplained. Since most parameters are not covered, the description does not compensate for the missing schema 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 opening sentence defines the tool's exact function: chart transits, current planetary positions ('где стоят грахи сейчас') and sign-change timing. It goes beyond a noun phrase by specifying the resource (chart transits), the action (report positions/sign changes/retrogrades), and the default body set, so an agent can distinguish it from sky_now or natal_chart.

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 gives substantial parameter-level usage guidance: default slow planets, short window for the Moon, retrograde section's own body set and horizon, and the birth-time caveat. However, it never names when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as sky_now or dasha_timeline, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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