calculate_lifetime_transit_summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: roughly half a minute of runtime, server checks running before results are returned, and that verification references always identify the complete checked calculation even when summarizing. The one gap is that it doesn't say what happens with missing birth data or how location_id interacts with the date fields.

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 purpose and output shape, then alternatives, then the verification protocol. Dense but each sentence carries content; the verification paragraph is long but tied to a correctness requirement an agent could otherwise violate.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the result structure (chapters, total_events, totals_by_aspect/group/target), which is exactly what an agent needs. It also covers runtime and the mandatory verification loop. The missing piece is any explanation of the birth-date/location inputs, which leaves the call signature underspecified.

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 only 22%, so the description carries the burden for the seven undocumented birth-data parameters (day, month, year, hour, minute, fold, location_id) — and it says nothing about them. What it does elaborate (include, detail_level) is already fully documented in the schema, so the added value is marginal.

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 plus the exact output shape: a lifetime transit count from birth to age 84, bucketed into twelve seven-year chapters and split by planet, slow/fast group, and axis/planet target. It names the sibling it is not ('Use calculate_transits_to_natal for the dated events'), so an agent can distinguish the aggregate scan from the dated-events tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes between alternatives (calculate_transits_to_natal for dated events) and gives a mandatory downstream step: call verify_calculation_claims with the unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting, then correct and reverify. It also states when to use detail_level=summary vs include vs neither. Nothing 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.