AI Transit Narrative (single date)

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but do not explain why a generation call is a mutation. The description fills that gap with concrete economics (250 credits, Tier 5) and an explicit confirm-with-user requirement, plus the orb ≤1° grounding rule for the output. It stops short of stating whether repeat calls re-bill, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: purpose sentence first, then inputs, then return semantics, then cost warning. The parameter list is short but inaccurate, so it spends words on content the agent cannot map to the schema.

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 the brief return note is sufficient and the credit/confirmation warning is valuable. But zero required parameters plus a schema with no chart field, while the description insists a chart is an input, leaves the agent without enough to assemble a valid call confidently.

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?

The description advertises inputs "chart + transitDate (+optional transitTime/tzOffset), language, tone, length," but the schema contains none of those names — it has date, time, ayanamsa, timezone, ayanamsaId, timezoneOffset. The naming mismatch is actively misleading, and the half of parameters the schema leaves undocumented (date, time, ayanamsaId) are not covered here either; ayanamsa is never mentioned.

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?

"Snapshot transit interpretation for a specific date" gives a concrete verb and resource and the date-scoping does separate it from monthly/year-ahead narrative siblings. However, no sibling is named explicitly, and the ambiguous set of transit/interpret report tools nearby is left for the agent to disambiguate on its own.

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 by the scope phrase "for a specific date"; there is no statement about when to prefer this over astroway_ai_interpret_transits or astroway_reports_transit_yearly. The one genuine directive is operational rather than selectional: "Heavy — confirm with user before invoking," which at least establishes a confirmation gate.

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