Savings Tips

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 covered. The description does add genuinely useful non-schema facts — the POST endpoint and a 10-credit / Tier 1 cost — which an agent needs for budgeting. It says nothing about what the response contains, but with annotations covering behavior a 3 is right.

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 bracketed format is compact and the purpose line is front-loaded, so nothing is bloated. But the compression comes at the cost of content — the four bracket lines spend space on group/endpoint labels of low value to tool selection while omitting when-to-use guidance.

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 tool with 23% schema coverage and a large optional surface, the description leaves the agent without guidance on which optional astrological parameters matter. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists, but parameter and selection context are clearly missing.

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 params, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It merely repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) already marked required in the schema, and says nothing about the nine optional params such as zodiacType, houseSystem, or cosmogram that materially change the 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?

States a specific resource — saving recommendations derived from astrological elements — which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it does no work to separate itself from the many financial siblings (wealth_house, spending_style, wealth_cycle, lucky_day), so an agent must guess which financial tool to pick.

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 vs astroway_financial_spending_style, astroway_reports_money, or astroway_financial_wealth_cycle. The bracketed metadata gives prerequisites and cost but never a usage condition or exclusion.

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