vedika_western_solar_return

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the tropical zodiac convention and a per-call cost of $0.120. It says nothing about error conditions (e.g. the polar-latitude rejection documented only in the schema), authentication requirements, or response size, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by the mode breakdown and the cost note, with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy comes from re-explaining the type enum values that the schema already spells out.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each mode returns, which substitutes for missing return documentation. It is nearly complete, though the absence of any sibling routing and of error-behavior notes leaves small gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter including the type enum, year range, and latitude/timezone constraints is already documented in structured form. The description's restatement of the three type modes largely duplicates the enum descriptions, and it adds no meaning about how 'year' interacts with 'datetime' for the return calculation.

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 states a specific verb and resource — casting a Western solar return chart at the moment the transiting Sun returns to its natal position — and clarifies the concept with the parenthetical 'solar birthday'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest sibling, vedika_varshaphal, which is the Vedic annual-return chart, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between the two.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over vedika_varshaphal, vedika_western_transits, or vedika_western_progressions, all of which occupy adjacent territory. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'themes for the coming year', leaving routing decisions to inference.

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