Explain Transit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'explain', such as what the output format is or that it performs a computation. Without annotations, this would be lower.

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 very short (two sentences plus an example), which is concise but fails to front-load critical information. Every sentence is used, but more detail is needed for a useful description.

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 complexity (nested chart object, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned explanation looks like, how to use the chart parameter, or the role of transitDate. The low schema coverage makes this gap significant.

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 17%, and the tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the example. The chart parameter is described in the schema, but others like transitPlanet, natalPlanet are not explained. The agent might not know valid values or format.

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 explains a transit aspect hitting a natal chart. The verb 'Explain' and resource 'transit hitting your natal chart' are specific. However, it mentions 'current transit' but the schema requires a transitDate, which not necessarily current. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like ai_explain_aspect.

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?

Only an example request body is provided, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like ai_explain_aspect or interpret_transits. No prerequisites or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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