divine_get_planet_retrograde_transit

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns both retrograde and direct motion periods along with effects on the native—useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any limitations, such as which planets are excluded or whether the results are based on a birth chart, though the schema partially addresses planet eligibility.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies the return content. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 an output schema present and full parameter descriptions in the input schema, the description does not need to document return values or parameter details. However, given the large sibling set and the astrological domain, the description is somewhat thin: it does not state that this is birth-chart-based, mention eligible/excluded planets, or clarify how the retrograde periods are determined. It is acceptable but not fully self-sufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 all 14 parameters already have explicit descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning, it only repeats the high-level purpose. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get retrograde transit details for a specific planet.' It then specifies what the call returns—retrograde and direct motion periods and their effects on the native. While this clearly identifies the tool's domain, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many other transit-related sibling tools such as grah_gochar, kundli_transit_moon, or planet_combustion_transit.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The schema notes which planets are eligible, but the description itself provides no routing information. An agent facing dozens of astrological transit tools would need to infer the distinction solely from the name and general wording.

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