Western Weekly Transits

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds transparency by noting that the house_system parameter is ignored for this tool, and that start_date defaults to today when omitted, giving users realistic expectations about parameter handling.

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 organized into concise sections (purpose, workflow, input contract, warnings, external reference), making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while covering all essential aspects in a compact form.

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 tool's purpose, workflow integration, parameter clarifications, and a link to the full output/error contract. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without needing additional context, especially given the high schema coverage.

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?

The schema already provides thorough descriptions for all parameters (birth, start_date, response_format), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds one extra semantic note: house_system is ignored, which clarifies a potential confusion given the schema includes it. This slight addition warrants a score above the baseline.

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 computes a 7-day transit window against a natal chart, returning daily snapshots and peak aspects. It also distinguishes it from daily and monthly transit tools, making its purpose 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 explicitly tells users to use this tool for a week-long transit view, and directs them to daily or monthly variants for other time spans. It also lists the recommended preceding call (natal chart) and following call (monthly transits), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool in a workflow.

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