Generate Career Compass Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot: the billing impact (5,000 credits, Tier 7, ~50% of the free monthly budget), which is critical for a non-idempotent paid call. It does not state that repeated invocations each bill separately or describe delivery of the PDF/HTML artifact, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Extremely tight: one content sentence followed by four bracketed metadata lines, with the cost warning front-loaded on its own line. The fragment 'Careers-themed natal:' is telegraphic but not wasteful; nothing in the text is filler.

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, endpoint, and required parameter are covered. Gaps remain for a three-parameter tool: no explanation of the language enum or the whitelabel object, and no statement of how the PDF vs HTML format implied by the title is selected.

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 33%, and the description contributes nothing beyond '[Required: chart]', which merely restates the schema's required array. Neither 'language' (a 21-value enum) nor 'whitelabel' (a nested styling object with 14 fields) receives any explanation of when or why to supply it, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 precisely ('Careers-themed natal') and enumerates the specific chart factors covered (MC, 10th-house cusp, Saturn, Mars, aspects to Sun), which lets an agent distinguish it from the generic natal or money report. It never uses an explicit verb like 'generates a PDF/HTML report', so the action is inferred from the title rather than the body, and no sibling report tool is named as a contrast.

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?

'Confirm with user before invoking' plus the credit cost is an explicit, actionable invocation precondition that most report tools lack. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over astroway_reports_natal, astroway_reports_money, or astroway_financial_career_money_style, so alternative-routing is left to inference.

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