Western Monthly Transits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. While the description adds context about response formats (markdown vs json) and defaults, it does not elaborate on side effects or system impact beyond what annotations imply. Given the annotation coverage, the description is consistent and adequate, though not overly detailed on behavioral aspects.

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 well-organized with clear sections (DESCRIPTION, WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and avoids redundant prose. However, it repeats some default information that already appears in the schema (e.g., start_date defaults to today), making it slightly verbose. Overall, it remains compact and scannable for an AI agent.

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 covers all necessary context: what the tool computes, default behavior, workflow prerequisites, related tools to avoid confusion, and a link to full documentation. Since the tool has an output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values, and it provides enough information for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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%, with every parameter (including nested birth fields) having descriptive text. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the purpose of start_date (setting month start) and noting that house_system is ignored, which is not immediately obvious from the schema alone. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: '30-day transit window vs natal chart' and returns 'day-by-day transit snapshots plus peak aspects.' It also specifies the default behavior ('defaults to today') and differentiates from daily and weekly variants via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage instructions, including how to set the month start via 'Use start_date to set the month start; defaults to today.' It also lists the correct workflow prerequisite ('BEFORE: asterwise_get_western_natal') and explicitly warns against confusion with the daily and weekly counterparts, giving clear guidance on when to select this tool.

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