Western Daily Transits

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that house_system is ignored for this endpoint, that start_date defaults to today, and defines the transit orbs used (major 3°, sextile 2°, minor 1°). This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly structured with short sentences, explicit sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH), and zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place: it defines the output, states the orbs, gives defaults, sequences dependencies, and links the full contract.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, nested objects, and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisites (natal chart first), input contract, defaults, exclusion of house_system, and links to full docs. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the birth object is WesternBirthData, noting which nested field is ignored for this endpoint (house_system), and clarifying start_date optionality and default behavior. It doesn't restate every schema field but adds workflow-relevant semantics.

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 verb and resource ('Current sky positions vs natal chart for a single day'), names the exact output (all 10 planets with tropical longitudes and active aspects), and differentiates itself from two siblings by day count. An agent can tell it apart from weekly/monthly variants without opening schemas.

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 WORKFLOW section explicitly says BEFORE calling get_western_natal to establish the natal chart first and AFTER calling weekly for a week view. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section lists the two sibling tools and the distinguishing duration (7 days vs 1 day, 30-day window vs single day). This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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