Transits Interpretation

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable facts: it is a paid call (100 credits, Tier 4) and it hits POST /v1/interpret/transits, which lets an agent budget and route before calling. It does not elaborate on latency or what the generative output looks like, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the whole purpose, followed by three short metadata lines that each earn their place (grouping, endpoint, credit cost). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 requiring a full birth-data block plus transitDate, the description leaves the interpretation window undefined: it is unclear whether transitDate anchors a single moment, a range, or the start of a lookahead period. With an output schema present the return shape need not be explained, but the temporal scope and the distinction from the other transit-interpretation/report siblings represent real gaps.

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% and the nested birth-data block is documented in depth (coordinate requirements, timezone handling, houseSystem letters, rejected short forms), so the description is not obliged to repeat any of it. It adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which matches the baseline 3 for a one-parameter wrapper.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: an AI-written interpretation of transits against a natal chart, with the lens ('what each major transit means in life context'). That clearly separates it from raw calculation siblings like astroway_prognostics_transits, but it never names an alternative such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit or astroway_reports_ai_transit_narrative, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'current/upcoming transits to a natal chart' implies the prerequisite (an existing natal chart) and a forward-looking time window, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. In a catalogue with several transit-interpretation siblings, the agent has to infer the selection rule itself.

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