Ideal Industries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the credit cost (10, Tier 1) and the required-input contract, which matter for agent budgeting, but says nothing about what drives the ranking of industries or how sensitive the result is to the optional astrological settings.

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?

One declarative sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata; nothing is padded or repeated, and the core statement is front-loaded. The tag lines are terse and each carries distinct information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost).

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, but for a 13-parameter astrological computation with low schema coverage the description is too thin — it omits which optional settings affect the answer, whether the location is the founder's birthplace, and how this differs from the other business-astrology 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 carries the burden — yet it only restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema. Nine optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezone, timezoneOffset, cosmogram, city, name, ayanamsaId) get no guidance at all, and some of them materially change the computed result.

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 specific output — industries best suited to a founder, derived from birth data — which is concrete and distinguishable from the report-style business siblings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools like astroway_business_ideal_partner_sign, astroway_business_founder_personality, or astroway_reports_business, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite context (e.g. that a full birth chart is required to get meaningful results), and no exclusions. The bracket block supplies the endpoint and required fields, but that is invocation mechanics, not usage guidance.

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