compute_transit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the core output behavior — planet longitudes for the transit time alongside natal positions — which is genuinely useful context. However, it omits other behavioral traits an agent would want, such as the zodiac system (sidereal vs tropical, relevant given the Vedic sibling tools) and which planets or points are included. No annotation contradiction exists because there are no 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and moment, the second states the return value and its purpose. The key constraints are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the agent's only window into the return shape. It explains the headline return (transit plus natal longitudes for aspect calculation) but leaves gaps: planet set, zodiac/ayanamsa convention, and output units, and it does nothing to disambiguate among the 16 sibling tools. For a pure compute tool with fully documented inputs this is adequate but not complete.

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% — each parameter is individually documented, including the critical UT1-not-TT convention for natal_jd and transit_jd. The description adds only a light semantic link by pairing natal_jd/natal_lat/natal_lon with 'natal positions' and transit_jd with 'the transit moment,' so it remains at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Compute transiting planet positions relative to a natal chart at a specific moment' and clarifies the output ('Returns planet longitudes for the transit time alongside natal positions'). This is specific and clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like compute_gochara or search_transits, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage context is only implied through 'enabling aspect calculation between transit and natal placements,' which hints this tool is for transit-vs-natal comparisons. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as compute_gochara, search_transits, or compute_synastry, which an agent could easily confuse this with.

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