AI Synastry Narrative

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the description's added context is the valuable part: a concrete cost of 250 credits at Tier 5 and an explicit instruction to confirm before invoking. It doesn't say whether the call is slow or whether results are cached, which would round this out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact bracketed metadata for required fields, endpoint, and cost. The tag-block format is dense but scan-friendly; nothing is redundant.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's job is mainly routing, cost, and confirmation guidance — all present. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation within the reports/relational cluster, which is material given how many near-duplicate tools exist.

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 40%, but the nested chart object itself carries extensive inline documentation, so the gap is narrower than the number suggests. The description lists the five inputs and implies chart1/chart2 are the two people's birth charts, but tone, length, and language semantics beyond their enums are left entirely to the schema.

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 verb and artifact: a long-form relationship narrative derived from cross-chart aspects, and enumerates the inputs. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings such as astroway_reports_synastry, astroway_ai_interpret_synastry, or astroway_relational_synastry, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The 'Heavy — confirm with user before invoking' warning and the 250-credit cost give a real gating rule for when this is appropriate. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the non-AI synastry report or the short-form interpret tool, which is exactly the decision an agent faces in this crowded family.

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