ephemeris_planetary_return

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: credit cost (5 credits per call). No contradictions; the description is consistent with 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 concise and well-structured: a clear definition, credit cost note, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 adequately explains the tool's input and purpose, but lacks details about the output format. Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what the return result contains (e.g., a date or chart 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds context through examples that show typical parameter values (e.g., body='saturn', birth_datetime format), enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: calculate a planetary return. It provides examples with different planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Chiron, Uranus) and typical periods, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ephemeris_solar_return and ephemeris_lunar_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 gives explicit examples and notes typical return periods, aiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., hd_planetary_return), so it falls short of full guidance.

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