Generate Money Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds material context they do not: the POST endpoint, the exact 5,000-credit Tier 7 price, that it consumes roughly half the free monthly budget, and a required confirmation step. That is meaningful cost/side-effect disclosure for a paid generation call. It omits what the returned artifact actually is or whether generation is async, keeping 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?

The content-scope sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, required, cost) are scannable and waste-free. Slightly repetitive to restate 'Financial natal' against the title, but overall tight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the cost/confirmation guidance is the most important thing an agent needs. The one gap is that the title advertises 'PDF or HTML' yet no parameter or sentence explains how that format is chosen, which could confuse 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: the nested chart object is documented in exceptional detail, but language and whitelabel have no descriptions anywhere. The description only restates '[Required: chart]' and adds nothing about the language enum or the whitelabel branding options, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on two of three parameters.

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 specific deliverable content — a financial natal report built from the 2nd house, 8th house, Jupiter and Saturn — which pinpoints it well against generic siblings. The action verb ('generate') lives only in the title, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with closely related siblings like astroway_financial_wealth_house or astroway_reports_career.

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?

There is a real operational directive — confirm with the user before invoking because of the premium cost — which is actionable guidance. However, there is nothing telling the agent when to pick this over the cheaper analytical siblings (astroway_financial_career_money_style, astroway_financial_wealth_house), which is the harder routing decision.

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