Explain Transit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: it costs 100 credits (Tier 4) and posts to /v1/ai/explain-transit. It says nothing about latency, output shape, or what happens when the requested aspect doesn't exist at that date.

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 sentence leads and is well front-loaded, but the bracketed metadata block includes the required-parameter list, which is pure duplication of the schema. The cost and endpoint lines do earn their place. Net effect is compact yet partly redundant.

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 6-parameter, nested-object, paid, LLM-backed operation with an output schema, the definition is thin. Return values are covered by the output schema, but the agent still lacks planet-name conventions, guidance on choosing aspectType versus letting the server derive it, and any usage routing against the many sibling interpret/transit tools.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It merely restates the required parameter names already present in the schema's required array, and gives no meaning for transitPlanet/natalPlanet (free-form strings, 2–40 chars – are these 'Mars', 'Sun'?), no format for transitDate beyond the regex, and no note on how aspectType interacts with the two planets.

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: 'Explain a current transit hitting your natal chart.' An agent can distinguish this as a single-transit explainer versus a broader transits tool. However, it never names the close siblings (astroway_ai_interpret_transits, astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'a current transit' weakly implies one transit event rather than a full transit listing, but the agent must infer that. Nothing tells the caller to prefer this over interpret_transits or explain_aspect.

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