Transits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds 'Returns applying and separating aspects', which is useful but doesn't detail side effects, permissions, or data volume. With annotations covering safety, the description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core function. The example and cost note are useful but could be considered extraneous. However, the example adds value for complex input, and the grouping helps context. No redundant sentences, but the description could be more streamlined.

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 (nested objects, many parameters) and the presence of a detailed input schema with descriptions, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and use. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the statement of what is returned ('aspects'). However, more detail on the aspect structure (e.g., orb, type) would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and includes descriptions for each parameter (e.g., birth data defaults, required fields). The description adds the example request body, which helps illustrate structure but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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 'Calculate transit planet aspects to natal planets for a given date' with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('transit planet aspects to natal planets'). It also specifies outputs ('applying and separating aspects'), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like 'aspects' which is general, or 'transit_calendar' which likely lists transits over time.

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 calculating transit aspects for a given date but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'transit_calendar' or 'aspects'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, though the example helps users understand required input format. Lack of guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if only applying aspects needed) reduces clarity.

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