Generate PDF Report

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

Annotations provide minimal info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the output (returns report record with PDF path), the two rendering backends, and the requirement for Chromium with 'html' renderer. It does not mention disk writing or database recording explicitly, but these are implied. Overall, it adds sufficient behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, renderer options, return value. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main output (report record with path) and explains the two renderer strategies. It does not detail every optional section or the exact return structure, but for a PDF generation tool with many optional inputs, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'renderer' parameter by explaining when to use each backend and the trade-off (Devanagari shaping vs. no browser). It also lists optional sections (dasha, gochar, panchang) which aligns with parameter descriptions. This extra context raises the score.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Render' and the resource 'client-facing PDF report', listing exact components (cover, charts, planet table, dasha timeline). It distinguishes from sibling tools that calculate or output JSON, making its purpose unique.

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 description implies usage after obtaining a kundali (from calculate_kundali) and optionally dasha/gochar/panchang. It details renderer options for different environments but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context signals show it is the only PDF generation tool among siblings, so guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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