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

Annotations reveal it is not read-only, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds the crucial operational fact the annotations do not: this costs 5,000 credits (Tier 7), roughly half a free monthly budget, and should be user-confirmed. That is exactly the cost/budget context annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying how the artifact is delivered or that the call is billed on generation.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the astrological content comes first, then the cost/confirmation block where an agent will actually look for it. The first sentence is tersely nominal ('Financial natal: 2nd house...'), but nothing is padding.

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 explanation is not required, and the annotations plus the cost warning cover the behavioral essentials. The remaining gap is that neither description nor annotations state what the tool produces or returns (a generated PDF/HTML report), which the title carries alone.

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?

Five parameters at 60% schema coverage, and the schema itself is unusually verbose about chart, fields, and precision. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning — chart, language, precision, and whitelabel are unexplained — but with this much schema-side detail the mechanical baseline of 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?

Together with the title, the description makes clear this is a financial/money natal report, spelled out as 2nd house (earned income), 8th house (shared resources), Jupiter and Saturn. That content scope distinguishes it well from siblings like astroway_reports_business or astroway_reports_career. It never states the verb or that the deliverable is a PDF/HTML, so it leans on the title for the action.

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?

Usage is implied by the financial scope, and there is an explicit invocation directive — confirm with the user before invoking. However, no alternative is named (e.g., when to prefer business or career reports over this one), and there is no when-not guidance.

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