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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a premium per-call cost, an explicit instruction to confirm before invoking, and a 'not financial advice' disclaimer that signals the report's liability scope. It does not cover async/PDF delivery timing or credit-refund behavior on failure.

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?

Three compact statements: what the report analyzes, what it highlights, and the disclaimer, followed by a bracketed metadata block with endpoint, required param, and cost. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the planetary parenthetical list is slightly dense relative to the rest.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For what remains — the expensive, confirm-first nature of the call, the required chart input, the endpoint, and the scope limitation implied by the disclaimer — the definition is complete. An agent has everything it needs to decide and invoke.

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 nested chart object carries very rich inline documentation (date/time formats, timezone handling, houseSystem letters), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter information at all — notably nothing about language, whitelabel branding, or the compact-mode fields/precision options — so it neither compensates for the uncovered 40% nor adds beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete deliverable (a founding-chart business astrology report) and enumerates the content it emphasizes (Sun/purpose, MC/reputation, Jupiter/growth, Saturn/structure), which distinguishes it from the many astroway_business_* analysis tools that compute raw factors rather than a report. It never states the output medium (PDF or HTML) in the body text — that only appears in the title — and states no verb, so it is clear but slightly implicit.

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?

The bracketed cost line gives real usage guidance: 5,000 credits / Tier 7, roughly half the free monthly budget, confirm with the user first. That is the strongest routing signal here. However there is no guidance on when to pick this report over sibling reports (business_founding_chart, reports_career, reports_money) or what input conditions make it appropriate.

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