calculate_solar_return

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: server checks gate successful results, a mandatory verification loop with correction and reverification is spelled out, and psychological interpretations are explicitly out of verification scope. It also discloses how summary truncation works and states that verification references always cover the complete calculation, so an agent knows the references are trustworthy even on truncated payloads.

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-loads the purpose and the returned artifacts, then moves to requirements and workflow in a logical order, and every clause about verification is load-bearing. It loses a point for restating the detail_level and include semantics almost verbatim from the schema descriptions, which is redundant 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the return payload and the verification contract. The gap is the date-time input block: with zero required parameters, an agent cannot tell from the description which temporal fields are needed or how they interact with target_year and the return moment.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage across 12 parameters, the description carries real weight and does clarify residence_location_id vs the birthplace ID, the placidus/whole_sign house_system values, and include/detail_level behavior. However, the six date-time parameters (year, month, day, hour, minute, fold) and their relationship to target_year are never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving the most ambiguous part undocumented.

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+resource ("Solar return chart for target_year") and enumerates the returned content: exact return moment, positions, angles, cusps, aspects, natal overlay, and monthly progressed Moon contacts. It implicitly separates the calculation from render_solar_return_chart by describing data rather than a rendered image, though it never names that sibling or calculate_lunar_return explicitly.

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?

Gives clear pre-conditions: residence_location_id is required and comes from search_birthplace, with a rule for when the birthplace ID is acceptable. It also mandates the verify_calculation_claims follow-up before interpretation and explains summary vs full selection, but offers no guidance on when this tool is preferred over calculate_lunar_return or the render counterpart.

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