search_transits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a search (non-mutating), requires natal positions and a Julian Day range, and returns exact transit moments with aspect type, orb, and applying/separating status. It doesn't mention precision limits or error cases, but the disclosed output shape is substantive.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the required inputs are stated, and the output fields are listed. Every sentence 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?

The description provides the essential usage and result structure, and the explicit list of returned fields is valuable given there is no output schema. Optional parameters are not mentioned in the description but are fully described in the schema, so the overall package is reasonably complete, though a note about the UT1 time-scale would further strengthen it.

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 baseline is 3. The description references natal positions and a Julian Day range but adds no detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it does not improve on what the schema already documents.

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 (Search), resource (transiting planet–natal planet aspects), and the time-window scope. The description clearly frames it as a search over a Julian Day range and lists the output artifacts, making it easy to tell apart from compute-style siblings like compute_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?

The description conveys the intended use (searching transit aspects within a time window) and the required inputs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over compute_transit or other sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions. The 'within a time window' phrasing implies the distinction but leaves the agent to infer it.

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