Generate Love Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent call, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 5,000-credit Tier 7 price, that it is roughly half a free monthly budget, and that the user should be asked first. The 'not a prophecy' disclaimer sets expectations for output framing. It does not say whether repeat calls re-charge credits or how the document is delivered, which keeps it below 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?

Content is front-loaded: what the report is, what it covers, the disclaimer, then a compact bracketed metadata block for endpoint, required input, cost, and the confirmation instruction. No sentence is redundant, though the metadata block reads as scaffolding rather than prose.

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-value detail is not needed, and the cost/confirmation policy is well covered. For a report generator with a heavily documented nested chart parameter, the remaining gaps are the meaning of language/whitelabel and what distinguishes it from the synastry report sibling. These are modest but real omissions.

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 coverage is only 33%: chart carries a very rich nested description, but language and whitelabel have none. The description contributes only '[Required: chart]' and does not explain that language selects the report locale or that whitelabel injects branding into the PDF/HTML. With a clear coverage gap, the description should compensate and does not.

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 specific artifact (a romantic-relationship natal report) and spells out its content formula: Venus for attraction, Mars for desire, Moon for emotional needs, Descendant for partner profile. That content list is what separates it from generic natal or synastry reports, so an agent can place it without opening the schema, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The only actionable guidance is operational: the premium cost warning and 'Confirm with user before invoking.' There is no statement of when to pick this over the many adjacent report tools (astroway_reports_natal, astroway_reports_synastry, astroway_relational_synastry) or of prerequisites beyond the required chart. Usage is implied by the topic rather than spelled out.

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