Risk Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema facts: the HTTP endpoint, the four required inputs, and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. It does not say whether the result is deterministic, cached, or how large the payload is, but with annotations plus cost disclosure this is above baseline.

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?

There is zero padding and the purpose line is front-loaded, but the body is a bracketed metadata block rather than a description. Its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification for a 13-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

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?

The tool takes 13 parameters with 23% documentation and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but it should at least clarify what "element-based" means, what inputs drive the profile, and what distinguishes it from the financial risk tool. None of that is present.

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 must compensate and does not. It restates the four required fields (already in the schema's required list) but says nothing about zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, ayanamsaId vs ayanamsa, or how the optional fields change the risk output.

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?

"Element-based risk tolerance + recommended safeguards" names a resource (a risk profile with safeguards) but reads as a fragment with an implied verb, and never says it is a business/company chart computation. There is a close sibling, astroway_financial_risk_tolerance, plus a dozen other astroway_business_* tools, and nothing in the description 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call this or astroway_financial_risk_tolerance / astroway_business_founding_chart for a risk question; the only selection signal is the [Group: Business Astrology] tag.

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