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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the 5,000-credit Tier 7 cost, that it consumes ~50% of a free monthly budget, and a confirm-before-invoking rule. It does not describe the returned artifact, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Two compact blocks: the content scope first, then the cost/confirmation warning. Every fragment earns its place, and the highest-stakes fact (credits and budget share) is isolated where a reader cannot miss it.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the cost caveat plus content scope give an agent enough to decide and call safely. Only the usage distinction from the other report siblings is unstated, which is a minor gap for a 5-parameter generator.

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 60%, and the description contributes nothing about chart, fields, language, precision, or whitelabel. The chart, fields, and precision properties are well documented in-schema, but language (enum) and whitelabel (large nested object) carry little or no description, and the tool text does not compensate.

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 names a specific report type and enumerates its astrological content (MC, 10th-house cusp, Saturn, Mars, Sun aspects), so an agent knows exactly what the artifact covers. It contrasts implicitly with the generic 'natal' sibling by prefixing 'Career-themed', though it never names a sibling 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 gives two usage signals: 'Self-knowledge tool, not directive' and 'Confirm with user before invoking' tied to the premium cost. That establishes a precondition, but it never says when to pick this over astroway_reports_natal, astroway_reports_money, or astroway_reports_business, leaving the choice among near-identical report siblings to inference.

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