Planetary Return

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns 'full charts for each return,' which is useful but not exhaustive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with two sentences plus a group/cost note and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The example is long but beneficial for understanding. Slightly verbose due to example inclusion, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (requires birth data, planet, year), the description covers the main purpose and provides an example. It mentions 'full charts' for output but lacks details on response structure or multiple returns. Schema and annotations fill some gaps, but completeness is moderate.

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 baseline is 3. The description includes an example request body that illustrates parameter usage, but the schema itself already provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., required fields, defaults). The example reinforces but does not add new meaning beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool finds all returns of any planet to its natal longitude within a given year. The verb 'Find' and specific resource 'returns of any planet to its natal longitude' precisely define the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lunar_return' or 'solar_return' which are planet-specific.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it covers any planet while siblings like 'lunar_return' are moon-only, nor does it specify when not to use it or any prerequisites. Users must infer usage from the description alone.

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