AI Transit Narrative (single date)

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the returned narrative is grounded in tight orbs (≤1°), and includes credit cost (250 credits) and a heavy usage warning. Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description partially fills the gap, though it does not clarify if the tool creates persistent reports or only returns text.

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 relatively concise with three clear sections: purpose, inputs, and group/cost. However, the input section inaccurately lists parameters, which undermines conciseness. The structure is otherwise logical.

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 (AI narrative, no output schema), the description omits crucial context: how to provide a natal chart (presumed from session), date format requirements, and what the narrative response structure includes. The parameter mismatch further reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 4 parameters (date, time, timezoneOffset, ayanamsaId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description lists inputs including 'chart', 'transitDate', 'language', 'tone', and 'length', but these do not match the schema (chart, language, tone, length are absent). This is misleading and adds confusion rather than clarifying parameter usage.

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 it is a 'snapshot transit interpretation for a specific date' that 'returns narrative grounded in transit-to-natal aspects (orb ≤1°).' This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like reports_ai_monthly_narrative or ai_explain_transit.

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 mentions it is for a 'specific date' and includes a heavy cost warning ('⚠️ Heavy — confirm with user before invoking.'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ai_explain_transit or transits, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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