Transit Midpoints

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and an output schema exists. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the schema lacks: the POST endpoint, the five required fields, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It stops short of explaining what the 90° dial result set contains or how large it may be, which matters for a compute-heavy scan.

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 sentence plus three bracketed metadata lines, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by transport-level facts. Nothing is padded, though the metadata block does more work than the prose, leaving the actual semantics underspecified.

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?

With 18 parameters at 17% coverage and a dual date/time pairing, the description is too thin for the call complexity; the natal-vs-transit distinction and the meaning of the boolean switches are left entirely to the agent's inference. The existing output schema excuses it from describing return values, but not from disambiguating the inputs.

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 only 17% across 18 parameters, and the description adds nothing beyond naming the five required fields. Critically, it never clarifies that date/time describe the natal moment while targetDate/targetTime describe the transit moment being scanned – the single most important semantic distinction for this call – nor what converse, cosmogram, withTnp or targetTzOffset do.

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?

"Transits hitting natal midpoints in 90° dial" gives a specific technique and resource, identifying this as a cosmobiology transit-to-midpoint scan rather than a static midpoint listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbours like astroway_cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures, astroway_aspects_midpoints, or astroway_cosmobiology_dial_90, which an agent would have to compare manually.

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 statement of when to choose this over the sibling midpoint/dial tools, nor any precondition or exclusion. The bracketed metadata lists required fields, endpoint and cost, but none of that tells an agent when this tool is the right selection.

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