vedika_western_transits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ephemeris backend, the tropical/no-ayanamsa convention, per-mode output contents, and an explicit cost of $0.064/call. It doesn't state that the call is a pure computation with no side effects, nor anything about error/failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and zodiac convention, then the mode breakdown, then cost. No filler; every clause carries either scope, mode semantics, or pricing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must imply return values — and it does at a mode level ('full transit overlay', 'aspects ... with orbs'). Combined with the schema's thorough parameter docs and the required datetime/lat/long/timezone set, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only granular return shape is left unspecified.

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 100% and each field (including the enum for 'type' and the polar-latitude rejection) is already documented in the schema. The description's mode summary adds a little interpretive value but nothing about formats or defaults (e.g. transitDateTime defaulting to now) beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Western astrology current transits against a natal chart') and pins down the zodiac convention ('Tropical zodiac, no ayanamsa'), which implicitly separates it from the Vedic birth_chart/dasha tools and from western_progressions/solar_return. It stops short of naming those siblings 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?

It clearly disambiguates the three internal modes ('chart' = full overlay, 'positions' = current planets, 'aspects' = transit-to-natal with orbs), which is real selection guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus vedika_western_progressions, vedika_western_solar_return, or vedika_birth_chart, so the cross-tool routing 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.