Comparison Coach

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not carry, namely the 100-credit Tier 4 cost and the endpoint path, but it says nothing about latency, output shape, or what 'coaching' returns. The required-fields line merely duplicates the schema.

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?

One sentence plus a compact bracketed metadata block; nothing is padded and the cost/required signals are easy to scan. The required-parameter line is redundant with the schema but cheap.

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 explained, and the nested chart schema is very rich. Still, for an AI-generation endpoint amid dozens of near-identical relational tools, the description leaves unclear what the deliverable is (advice? a narrative report? a score) and how it differs from the synastry interpreters.

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 coverage is 50%, and the two chart objects are documented exhaustively in the schema (formats, timezone semantics, house system letters), so the description does not need to repeat them. The gap is the undocumented 'question' field (only a 5-2000 char length constraint) and 'language', which the description does not clarify at all.

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 sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Coach two charts on relationship dynamics'), so the agent knows it takes two birth charts and a question about a relationship. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_ai_interpret_synastry, astroway_relational_synastry, or astroway_horoscope_compatibility, and 'coach' is left undefined.

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 rather than the many synastry/compatibility siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only guidance is a restatement of the three required fields and a credit cost, which tells the agent nothing about selection.

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