Generate Business Astrology Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds critical operational context the annotations do not: the endpoint, the 5,000-credit Tier 7 cost, that this is roughly 50% of a free monthly budget, and that user confirmation is required. It does not clarify the output artifact format (PDF vs. HTML) even though the title promises both.

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?

Front-loaded with the report's substance, then the operational metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) in compact bracketed form. No filler sentences, though the telegraphic fragments leave some terms ambiguous.

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 no explanation, and the cost/required signals are present. Still missing for a premium, non-idempotent generation tool: what artifact the caller receives (which format), how the language and whitelabel parameters affect the generated document, and why one would pick this over the cheaper founding-chart sibling.

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 33% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry weight, yet it only restates 'Required: chart' (already in the schema's required array) and says nothing about the 'language' enum or the extensive 'whitelabel' object (branding, colors, fonts, company info). An agent gets no help from the description on two of the three top-level parameters.

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 the resource concretely ('Founding-chart analysis (mundane astrology)') and even the interpretive pillars (Sun/purpose, MC/reputation, Jupiter/growth, Saturn/structure), so an agent knows exactly what content this produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_business_founding_chart or astroway_reports_money / astroway_reports_career, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 one real gating instruction — 'Confirm with user before invoking' because of the 5,000-credit cost — which is genuinely useful selection guidance. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives (astroway_business_founding_chart computes similar data without the report cost), so the agent must infer the routing.

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