get_daily_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'check,' which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose if there are side effects, auth requirements, or limitations. The description carries the full burden but offers minimal behavioral context.

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 purpose, then lists arguments with examples. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, achieving high conciseness.

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 output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and 3 required parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and most parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though more detail on the type of interactions could help.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with clear examples for each parameter (e.g., ISO 8601 date, 'HH:MM' format, IANA timezone). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 checks 'natal chart clashes and combinations for a specific date,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_daily_pillars or get_day_quality.

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 clear context for using the tool with a date and birth info, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools. However, the examples and sibling names imply the intended use case.

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