Solar Return

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which are not contradicted by the description. The description adds useful context (group, cost) and states it returns a chart, but does not detail additional behaviors like data dependency on accurate birth time. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensively.

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 concise: two sentences of core purpose followed by meta-info (group, cost) and a helpful example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple but lacks an output schema. The description says 'Returns full solar return chart' but does not specify the format or key fields of the output. The example shows input but not output. Given complexity and lack of output schema, the description could be more complete about what the chart contains.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description provides an example request body that illustrates typical parameter values, which adds some practical guidance. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'year' or other fields beyond what the schema already includes.

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's specific function: finding the exact moment of the Sun's return to its natal longitude for a given year and returning the full solar return chart. The verb 'Find' and noun phrase 'solar return chart' are precise and distinguish it from sibling tools like lunar_return or planetary_return.

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 implies usage for annual solar return calculations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The group 'Prognostics' and cost provide context, but no direct guidance on excluding other return tools or prerequisites.

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