AI Monthly Narrative

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the two facts an agent actually needs before calling: 250 credits at Tier 5 and a heavy-operation flag requiring user confirmation. It doesn't describe latency or what the narrative payload contains, but an output schema exists to cover the return side.

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 scope statement and sibling contrast come first, followed by a compact input list and a cost warning — logical ordering with minimal filler. The 'Inputs:' enumeration is largely redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 six-parameter tool with a nested chart object and true output schema, the description is adequate for selection and cost-safety but thin on the parameter contract, particularly the shape of chart and the enum semantics of tone/length/language. The high-level model (in-month fast and slow transits) is present, which is the main thing the agent can't get from structured fields.

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 17%, so the description should compensate, and it mostly does not: 'Inputs: chart, year, month (1-12), language, tone, length' just re-lists names. It adds the month range, which is already in the schema, and says nothing about what chart must contain (the nested birth-data object), what tone/length/language defaults apply, or which of the six are optional. The rich nested chart description in the schema partly rescues this.

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?

It states a specific deliverable — a single-month narrative forecast driven by fast and slow transits within that month — and explicitly contrasts scope with the year-ahead sibling. It stops short of naming itself as a generated report and doesn't differentiate against other monthly-adjacent tools such as astroway_reports_ai_transit_narrative or astroway_horoscope_monthly.

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?

'Tighter scope than year-ahead' gives a usable selection rule against the closest sibling, and the cost warning with 'confirm with user before invoking' is concrete invocation guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use case or routing to alternatives for shorter/longer horizons.

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