Saturn Return Cycles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations; it does not mention what is computed (e.g., specific return ages, number of returns), nor the output format. For a tool with complex behavior, this is insufficient.

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 description is very short (2 lines) but includes a group tag. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity. Every sentence earns its place, but there is too little substance for effective tool selection.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (calculating Saturn returns for up to 8 family members with detailed birth data), the description is woefully incomplete. There is no output schema, no mention of return types, and no explanation of the computation. The agent cannot infer what the tool actually produces or how to interpret results.

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 0% according to context, meaning no descriptions for individual properties. The tool description does not explain the 'members' parameter or any of its subfields, even though the schema includes a description for items. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent unaware of requirements like date formats or location defaults.

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?

The description 'Saturn return timing across a family cohort' clearly indicates the tool calculates Saturn return timing for multiple family members, distinguishing it from many other family astrology tools. However, it lacks a verb like 'calculates' and does not specify what 'timing' entails (dates, intervals, etc.), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as family_genogram or family_sibling_dynamics.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as family_genogram or family_system_pattern. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or hints about when to prefer this tool over others in the family astrology group.

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