Founder Personality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the POST endpoint and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it. It says nothing, however, about what is required to obtain the report (birth data of the founder) or how errors/cost failures are surfaced.

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 content is small and front-loaded: one line describing the output, then bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required inputs and cost. Nothing is padded, though the one-line purpose fragment is so terse that it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety, but for a 13-parameter endpoint with 23% schema coverage the description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell from the definition whose birth data to supply, how the sidereal/house-system options change the result, or why it would pick this tool over the other business_* tools.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not: it only repeats the four required fields already listed in the schema's required array. Undocumented enums and ambiguities remain unaddressed, notably the single-letter houseSystem codes, ayanamsaId versus ayanamsa, the timezone/timezoneOffset interaction, and the meaning of name, city and cosmogram for this specific report.

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 lists the report's contents (founder type, strengths/weaknesses, ideal industry) but never uses a verb or names the resource being computed, and it gives no hint that the result is derived from birth data. Sibling tools such as astroway_business_ideal_industry, astroway_business_leadership_style and astroway_business_risk_profile overlap directly with the listed outputs, and nothing distinguishes this tool from them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical business siblings (founding_chart, ideal_industry, leadership_style, risk_profile). The only routing-like information is the '[Group: Business Astrology]' tag and a restatement of which parameters are required.

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