Generate Lal Kitab Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious economics (Tier 7, 5,000 credits, half the free monthly budget) and the required-input constraint ('Required: chart') plus the ayanamsa convention used. It does not say what is produced on failure or whether repeated calls re-charge, but the credit warning is the high-value disclosure here.

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?

Content summary is front-loaded, the metadata block ([Group]/[Endpoint]/[Required]/[Cost]) is scannable, and no sentence is filler. The prose sentence about sidereal compute could arguably be trimmed, but it carries real convention information.

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 described, and the cost/confirmation guidance is present. Still missing for a premium bundled-report tool: what format the deliverable comes in (PDF vs HTML), and what language/whitelabel do, which leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Only the nested chart object is well documented, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description. Two of the three top-level parameters — language (21-language enum) and whitelabel (branding object) — are undocumented in both places; an agent gets no signal that the report text can be localized or that branding can be injected, despite schema coverage being only 33%. The sole description-side hint is the Lahiri ayanamsa default.

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 enumerates the exact analytic payload (Teva with Pakka-ghar match, Kismat, Prosperity, Rins with triggers, Upayas) and the compute convention (Lahiri sidereal, sign-from-Lagna houses), which distinguishes it from the single-component Lal Kitab siblings such as astroway_vedic_lal_kitab_teva or _rin. However, the description itself never states the deliverable is a generated PDF/HTML report; that only appears in the title, so an agent skimming the description could misread it as a JSON analysis endpoint.

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 an explicit procedural rule — 'Confirm with user before invoking' backed by the 5,000-credit / ~50% of free monthly budget warning — which is exactly the decision an agent needs before spending. It does not, however, route the agent to cheaper granular alternatives (e.g. the individual Lal Kitab tools) when only one section is needed.

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