Transits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that range cap, date order, and validity are enforced upstream, and clarifies it returns a chronological list without side effects. This supplements the annotation with operational constraints, though it does not fully describe error handling or edge cases.

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 structured into clear sections (description, workflow, input contract, do not confuse) and is appropriately detailed given the large sibling list. It avoids fluff, though the DO NOT CONFUSE section is somewhat repetitive with the WORKFLOW. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the output schema is available (as indicated by context) and the description explains the returned data as chronological astronomical events, the description is complete. It also explains the input window and birth context. Minor gap: it does not explicitly mention the output format options (markdown/json), though those are in the schema parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including nested birth fields, enums for ayanamsa and response_format, and defaults. The description adds the input contract (YYYY-MM-DD and 24-month cap) that is not fully explicit in the schema for from_date/to_date, enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the tool lists sign ingresses and retrograde/direct stations for all planets between two dates, with an explicit 'against the natal context' qualifier. This distinguishes it from generic transit tools and names the specific astronomical events returned.

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 includes a WORKFLOW section explicitly recommending the before-tool (asterwise_get_natal_chart) and after-tool (asterwise_get_gochar). It also provides a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section that contrasts with two sibling tools (gochar and dasha_transits), giving concrete selection criteria.

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