Generate Gemstone Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral facts: the output is a generated document with a default format and a query-string switch that is not represented in the input schema, and the results are pinned by a test to never disagree with the gemstones endpoint. It does not say whether generation is synchronous, how long a 5,000-credit render takes, or what happens on failure.

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 core identification is front-loaded correctly (format, parity with the endpoint, what the document contains), but the middle is rhetorical filler ('What the document adds is what a table cannot carry') and the trailing sentence is cut off mid-clause. A long per-item page inventory is justified for a document tool, yet it crowds out the parameter guidance that is actually missing.

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 the description is not obliged to enumerate return values, and it nonetheless spends its words on document contents rather than on the gaps that matter for invocation: no explanation of `school`, `language`, `whitelabel` or `wearingFrom`, and no mention in the body that this is a Tier 7, 5,000-credit premium call requiring user confirmation. For a high-cost generative report tool, that is incomplete despite strong artifact description.

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 20% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely does not: `school`, `language`, `whitelabel` and `wearingFrom` are never explained. 'Same two schools' obliquely hints at the two-valued `school` enum and 'the next auspicious day to first wear it' hints at `wearingFrom`, but neither tells the agent what sending them does (localized PDF text, branded pages, overriding the computed wearing date).

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 concrete artifact (a multi-page A4 PDF, or live HTML via `?format=html`) built from the ratna prescription, and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling surface `POST /vedic/gemstones`: same lagna, same two schools, same three gems, but a per-gem document rather than a table. An agent can distinguish this report tool from astroway_vedic_gemstones and the other report tools without inspecting schemas.

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 a clear selection rule — take the table endpoint for data, take this one when the document's added detail (per-gem pages, wearing day) is what the user wants — and states the default format plus how to switch to HTML. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. 'do not use for quick lookups or bulk/batch runs'), and the premium cost confirmation sits in context metadata rather than the usage prose.

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