Spending Style

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — the endpoint path and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about what the result contains or how sign is derived (Sun sign vs. chart).

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 single content sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata block is scannable. The severity here is under-specification rather than verbosity, so conciseness itself is fine.

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 not be described, but for a 13-parameter tool with three enums and low schema coverage the description leaves too much unanswered — no explanation of what the sign-specific pattern is derived from, and no coverage of the optional astrological settings.

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 only 23% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the description must compensate and does not: it merely restates the four required fields already in the schema. The nine optional parameters (ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, timezoneOffset, city, name, cosmogram) get no mention, so an agent has no guidance on which matter for a spending-style reading.

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 identifies the output ('sign-specific spending pattern'), which is a resource but no verb and no scope. It does not distinguish itself from close financial siblings such as astroway_financial_career_money_style or astroway_financial_risk_tolerance, so an agent cannot route between them from the 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other financial astrology endpoints, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-relevant facts are the required parameters and cost, which are structural metadata, not guidance.

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