Leadership Style

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations lack: credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1), endpoint, and required inputs. It says nothing about latency, auth, or output shape beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact bracketed metadata block; no filler. The metadata block is terse and scannable, though the '[Group]' line adds little an agent can act on.

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 the required/cost metadata is present. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and 23% schema coverage, the definition leaves too many optional knobs ambiguous for confident invocation.

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?

With 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and mostly does not meet it. It names the four required parameters (date, time, latitude, longitude) but leaves roughly nine optional parameters—cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem, ayanamsaId, city, name—undocumented in both description and schema.

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 resource and output shape (leadership archetype plus key strengths), which is more concrete than the title alone. It does not distinguish itself from close business siblings such as astroway_business_founder_personality, astroway_business_marketing_style, or astroway_reports_business, so an agent cannot route between them from this text 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over the many other business-tool siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent signal is the required-parameter list, which tells the agent how to call it but not when.

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