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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive behavior: scope (all nine planets), event categories detected, and the current-or-requested week window. It does not explain the default behavior implied by zeroed day/year/month fields or any auth/limit considerations, so gaps remain for a no-annotation 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?

Labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHAT IT DOES, RETURNS, NEXT) make it front-loaded and scannable, with the core purpose in the first line. Each block adds real information, though the RETURNS block partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

Purpose, usage, and follow-up routing are complete, and the output schema relieves the description of explaining return values. However, for a five-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the total silence on parameter meaning leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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% across five parameters, and the description never explains any of them. It only hints that the week can be 'current or requested', leaving the interaction between day/year/month and iso_week, plus ayanamsa_mode, entirely opaque to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get this week's major planetary transit events') and enumerates the event types it detects (sign/nakshatra ingresses, stations). This clearly separates it from a generic 'calculate_transits', though it never names that sibling explicitly to draw the boundary.

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 'WHEN TO USE' block gives a concrete trigger (needing this week's transits for predictions or planning) and 'NEXT' routes the agent onward to calculate_birth_chart for natal aspecting. No exclusion against calculate_transits is stated, but the context and follow-up are clear.

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