get_planet_transits

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (get current positions) and mentions real-time data, but does not disclose any destructive effects, rate limits, or data freshness specifics.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences covering purpose and use cases. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured with clear sections.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) and any limitations (e.g., only today's data).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves real-time planetary transit data for all 9 planets, specifying returned fields (signs, degrees, retrograde status). However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tool 'get_planet_details', which may overlap.

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?

It provides clear use cases (transit analysis, electional astrology) and example queries ('where is Saturn right now?'), but no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools.

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