Generate Child Astrology Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the description's main added value is the pricing disclosure: 5,000 credits at Tier 7, roughly half the free monthly budget, with an explicit confirm-first instruction. It also discloses that the document ends with an interpretive disclaimer. It does not mention delivery mechanics (how the PDF/HTML is returned, latency), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Four tight lines: content summary first, then structured metadata for group/endpoint/required, then the cost warning in caps with an emoji flag. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the required/cost scaffolding is partly redundant with schema and annotations.

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 not be explained, and the cost/safety picture is covered. Still incomplete for a tool whose inputs include a localization locale and a full white-label branding block, neither of which the description acknowledges, and with no routing guidance among the many sibling report generators.

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 compensate, and it says nothing about any of the three parameters. The nested 'chart' object is documented exhaustively in the schema, but 'language' (21-locale enum governing report language) and especially 'whitelabel' (a large branding object) are undocumented in both places. This matters a lot for a generated document.

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 resource ('Parenting-oriented natal report') and enumerates the interpretive content (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars) plus the deliverable ('full natal data and a disclaimer'). This clearly separates it from astroway_reports_natal, reports_love, and reports_career without naming them. It never uses a generation verb, so the output form (PDF/HTML) is only inferable from the title.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Parenting-oriented' — use it for a child's chart, not an adult's — and the cost line adds a real operational instruction ('Confirm with user before invoking'). However, no sibling report tool is named as an alternative, and there is no statement of when NOT to use this versus astroway_reports_natal or astroway_reports_generate.

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