Calculate planetary aspects - Aspect finder for any date and time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the tool returns applying/separating status and a 0-100 strength, supports filtering, and uses 'standard Western astrology orbs.' This helps set expectations about output richness and orb conventions without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action, then defines aspect types, output fields, filtering, use cases, and orb conventions. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or tautological restatement of the tool name. The use-case list is brief but adds useful context.

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 a detailed input schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the single date/time scope, output highlights, filtering, and orb conventions. The main missing piece is explicit sibling differentiation, but that is already accounted for in usage guidelines.

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 the schema already fully documents date, time, timezone, lang, compact, planets, and aspectTypes. The description only reinforces that planets and aspectTypes can filter results and that minor aspects are included by default, adding little beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate all major and minor aspects between planets for any date and time,' and it enumerates the output fields (aspect type, angle, orb, applying/separating status, strength). This clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with nearby siblings like post_astrology_aspects_monthly or post_astrology_transit_aspects, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 says it is 'Perfect for aspect tables, transit analysis, and aspect pattern detection,' which gives use cases but no decision rule for choosing this tool over alternatives. With sibling tools such as post_astrology_aspects_monthly, post_astrology_transit_aspects, and post_astrology_aspect_patterns present, explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus those would help. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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