Forecast Calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation behavioral context: a concrete cost of 100 credits (Tier 4) and the POST endpoint, which is useful for planning. It does not mention rate limits or maximum period length.

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 capability is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. There is no filler, though the bracketed metadata lines are somewhat boilerplate.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description never states that natal birth data is required input, nor how granular the 'period' is, and it does not resolve ambiguity against closely related calendar 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 100%, so the schema fully documents the nested natal fields and year. The description's 'given period' loosely corresponds to the year parameter but adds no syntax, constraints, or clarification beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Generate') and a well-defined resource ('combined forecast calendar') and enumerates the components (transits, lunar phases, ingresses, retrograde stations). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as astroway_prognostics_transit_calendar or astroway_calendar_ingresses, leaving the agent to infer that 'combined' means an umbrella tool.

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 'for a given period' implies usage for period-based ephemeris calendars, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives despite dozens of calendar siblings that could compute subsets of the same data.

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