calculate_house_ingresses

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: server-side checks gate successful results, psychological interpretations are not verified, summary mode truncates nested rows at five while preserving scalar lists, and verification references always point at the full calculation. The remaining gap is that it does not say what those 'server checks' validate or what a failed check looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the right statement of scope, but the detail_level sentence largely restates the schema's own description of the same parameter, and the verification-protocol sentences are dense run-ons that mix three separate instructions. It is not bloated, but a chunk of it does not earn its place against structured fields.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, 17% schema coverage, and zero required parameters, the description leaves an agent unable to tell how to supply birth data or whether omitting birth-moment params changes the result. The verification and summary behaviors are well covered, but the core input story is not.

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 only 17% across 12 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden — but it only explains planet, from_date/to_date, include, and detail_level. The seven birth-moment/location parameters (year, month, day, hour, minute, fold, location_id) are never mentioned, even though they are the inputs that make 'natal houses' computable, and the tool declares zero required parameters with no explanation of defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: transiting Saturn and Jupiter entering natal Placidus houses from birth to age 84, with retrograde re-entries. That is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from generic transit tools, though it never names how it differs from close siblings such as calculate_saturn_jupiter_cycles or calculate_transits_to_natal.

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 gives a clear workflow rule (call verify_calculation_claims with the unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting, and reverify after correcting contradicted facts), plus filter semantics for planet and dates. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the many adjacent transit/cycle calculators, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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