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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that retrograde motion produces three crossings per return, so multiple dates appear per cycle — but says nothing about accuracy limits when birth time is omitted, place-resolution fallbacks, or defaults.

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?

It is a single sentence, which is efficient, but it is dense with stacked parentheticals and the clause "each return with its dates and the age" is awkward and partially redundant. The core subject is front-loaded, but readability suffers.

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 8 parameters and a full output schema plus rich annotations, the description only needs to convey intent and the multi-crossing nuance, which it does. Minor gaps remain around birth-time sensitivity and place-resolution behavior, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter (date range, place, lat/lon, tz, time, lang, house_system) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only an oblique reference to "places of birth" and nothing about how place/lat-lon/tz interact or that time is optional, so it sits at the high-coverage baseline.

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 names a specific astrological resource — Saturn returns near ages 29/59/88 and Jupiter returns roughly every 12 years — returning each to its birth position, which is enough to tell what the tool computes. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling solar_return or stating the operation in a verb-led way, and the phrasing ("come back to their places of birth") is indirect.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that a birth date (and ideally birth time and place) is required input, and no routing away from the closely related solar_return or transits siblings. Usage is only implied by the subject matter.

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