AI Natal Narrative

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), it discloses cost tier, a heavy-operation warning, the token ceiling (≤3200 tokens), the grounding basis (computed chart with Sun/Moon/Asc, 13 bodies, 12 houses, ≤25 aspects), and the returned payload (narrative plus model and token usage). That is substantive context, though it doesn't address caching, retries, or failure modes.

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 and inputs come first, followed by return values and then bracketed operational metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost). Dense and front-loaded, with only minor redundancy in restating enum values already in the schema.

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 needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with cost and grounding detail, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the main missing piece is routing versus the other report tools.

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 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three optional parameters: language (21 codes), tone (warm/professional/concise), and length (short/medium/long with the token ceiling). The chart object is documented thoroughly in the schema itself.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Long-form natal-chart narrative (markdown)' — and states its inputs, distinguishing it from the other AI narrative siblings by scope (natal vs synastry/transit/monthly/year-ahead) without naming them explicitly.

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?

It gives context (POST endpoint, required chart, Tier 5 cost of 250 credits, 'Heavy — confirm with user before invoking'), which shapes invocation but is not the same as when-to-use guidance. It never states when to prefer astroway_reports_natal or astroway_ai_interpret_natal over this, leaving sibling selection to the agent.

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