Transit Calendar

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's main added value is the event granularity rule ('a retrograde triple pass gives three events'), which is genuinely non-obvious. Beyond that it discloses nothing about cost behavior, result volume, or error conditions, and the 100-credit cost line is metadata rather than behavioral insight.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the core meaning, with the group/endpoint/cost block kept separate and short. No filler, though the bracket metadata is boilerplate rather than description content.

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 the natal-plus-range input model is documented in the schema. Still missing is any positioning against the several nearby prognostics/transit tools, which matters given the crowded sibling set.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself already explains maxOrb as a non-filter and lists valid aspect angles and transit planet ids. The description only echoes the date-range concept, adding no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 ('List the exact moments of transit-to-natal aspects in a date range') and adds a precise unit-of-output clause ('one event per exact pass'). It is clearly distinguishable from a snapshot transits call, though it never names the closest sibling, astroway_prognostics_transits, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for enumerating exact aspect timings over a window. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance nor any statement of prerequisites (natal birth data) or when a different prognostics tool is preferable.

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