Aspect Timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the POST endpoint, the tier-4 cost of 100 credits, and the fact that results come back as enter/exact/leave windows. It says nothing about pagination, precision/limits, or how the step/orb settings affect cost or output size.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, with the metadata block kept short and scannable. The bracket lines are boilerplate but each carries actionable information (endpoint, required params, cost).

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be described. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should at least clarify what the planet/aspect arrays accept and how maxOrb and stepDays shape the timeline; that gap makes it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It restates that startDate/endDate are required (already in the schema) and vaguely gestures at 'two specific planets' and 'exact aspect', but leaves maxOrb, stepDays, aspectAngles, and the array nature of planet1Ids/planet2Ids entirely unexplained—the arrays even contradict the 'two specific planets' framing.

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 and resource ('Calculate a timeline of when two specific planets form an exact aspect') plus the window of interest and the enter/exact/leave output granularity. It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it never names the neighboring aspect tools (aspect_bar, calendar_aspects, parallel_aspects) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The required-parameter and cost metadata give context but do not tell the agent which situation should route here rather than to a general aspects or calendar tool.

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