Risk Tolerance

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the POST endpoint. It does not explain how the reading is derived or whether results are deterministic beyond the idempotent hint, but the cost disclosure is real value an agent needs for planning.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and wastes no words, and the bracketed metadata is terse. The [Required: ...] line duplicates the schema's required array and is the only genuinely removable element.

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?

For a 13-parameter, 10-credit computation, the definition omits what inputs actually change the answer (zodiac type, house system, ayanamsa) and how it differs from sibling financial tools. Safety and return shape are covered by annotations and the output schema, so the remaining gap is squarely in input semantics and sibling routing.

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; houseSystem has 25 opaque enum codes, and zodiacType, cosmogram, ayanamsaId, city and name carry no schema documentation at all. The description only repeats the four required names, adding no meaning beyond the schema and leaving the majority of inputs unexplained.

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 concrete output: an element-based risk tolerance reading plus suggested allocation buckets, which is more specific than the title 'Risk Tolerance'. However, it never states what produces that reading (a natal chart from date/time/place) and does not distinguish it from near-neighbours like astroway_financial_investor_archetype or astroway_business_risk_profile.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternative, despite roughly a dozen financial/business siblings that an agent could easily confuse it with. The bracketed metadata lines are operational facts, not usage routing.

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