calculate_transits_to_natal

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description rightly spends its budget elsewhere: server-side checks before results are returned, times in UTC plus birthplace local time, the axes-conjunction-only limitation, and that empty axis events do not imply no other axis aspects. The truncation semantics of detail_level and the guarantee that verification references always cover the full calculation are useful non-obvious behaviors.

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?

Core purpose and the date range are front-loaded, which is correct. The remainder is dense run-on prose mixing domain rules, output-shaping flags and a downstream workflow obligation, with no structure to separate them; some sentences (the detail_level explanation) are duplicated by the schema.

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 13-parameter, annotation-covered, output-schema-less tool this covers the domain caveats and the verification loop well. It is still incomplete on how the natal chart itself is specified – the birth date/time components and location_id are never connected to the request, leaving an agent guessing whether they are required for a meaningful result.

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 15%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain from_date/to_date format, the planet enum values, target_scope options and detail_level/include behavior. But seven parameters (year, month, day, hour, minute, fold, location_id) – evidently the natal birth moment and place – are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a material gap.

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: exact transits of five named planets to the natal chart within a bounded date range. It also defines the target scope (all/axes/points), which separates it from generic aspect-scanning tools. It never names a sibling it competes with, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Provides real contextual guidance – the 3-year maximum window, when to use summary vs include vs neither, and a mandatory follow-up call to verify_calculation_claims. However, it never says when to choose this over calculate_aspect_windows, get_transit_snapshot or calculate_lifetime_transit_summary, which is the biggest selection ambiguity in this sibling set.

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