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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true and destructive=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them — a 5,000-credit cost (Tier 7), the share of a free monthly budget it consumes, and a mandatory user-confirmation step. It also sets expectations with a 'not a prophecy' disclaimer. It stops short of describing the returned artifact.

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 short blocks, front-loaded with what the report is and then the cost/confirmation warning. Waste-free, though the bracketed metadata lines are slightly stack-like rather than prose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, but the title promises 'PDF or HTML' and the description never says which output form is produced or how it is selected — a notable omission given no visible format parameter. The credit cost and confirmation requirement are well covered; the input/output contract is not.

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?

The description says nothing about any of the 5 parameters, including the required nested 'chart' object. With schema description coverage at only 60%, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameters (fields, language, precision, whitelabel) and does not.

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+resource ('Romantic-relationship natal report') and names the exact astrological bodies it interprets, so the agent knows the report's content. It does not contrast itself with the closest sibling (astroway_reports_synastry, which covers two-person relationship analysis), leaving that distinction to inference.

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 cost block gives real pre-invocation guidance ('Premium — ~50% of free monthly budget. Confirm with user before invoking'), which is actionable. However, there is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling reports such as synastry, natal, or career, which is what an agent most needs to route correctly.

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