ephemeris_natal_transits

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds credit cost (3 credits per call) and an example, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two paragraphs: first states purpose, second gives credit cost and example. It is front-loaded with the main function. The credit cost could be separated, but overall there is no wasted text.

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 description lacks explanation of the return format (no output schema) and does not describe what aspects or data the agent should expect. Despite a good input example, the tool's output behavior is opaque. Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description provides an example that demonstrates usage of the three required parameters, adding practical context but no new semantic information beyond the schema. 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 calculates active transits to a natal chart, using specific verbs and resources ('Calculate active transits', 'shows which current planets are aspecting natal positions'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ephemeris_transits' (general transits) and 'ephemeris_natal_chart' (just natal chart) by focusing on transits to a specific natal chart.

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 says 'Essential for predictive astrology' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'ephemeris_transits' or 'ephemeris_solar_return'. It provides an example but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from other transit tools, relying on the tool name and context for differentiation.

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