Generate Vedic Kundli (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already reveal it is non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: the exact credit cost, tier, that it consumes about half the free monthly budget, and the need for user confirmation before invoking. This meaningfully informs invocation behavior, though it does not explain what artifact is produced or whether the call can be repeated without additional cost.

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 description front-loads the report contents, then presents scannable bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required parameter, and cost. The premium cost warning is prominent. The first sentence is dense but every element earns its place.

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 details need not be explained. The description thoroughly covers the report's astrological contents and the premium cost context. However, it omits how to select between PDF and HTML (mentioned only in the title), does not differentiate from the closely named sibling astroway_vedic_kundli, and leaves the language and whitelabel parameters undocumented, which are important for a report-generation tool.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the three parameters. It does not describe 'language' or 'whitelabel' at all, and only repeats that 'chart' is required, which the schema already states. The rich nested description on 'chart' lives in the schema, not the tool description.

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 gives a specific resource and enumerates its contents (Lagna, Moon nakshatra/pada, planet positions, Vimshottari Mahadasha tree), which clearly distinguishes a Vedic Kundli report from generic chart tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling astroway_vedic_kundli, but the content inventory is detailed enough for an agent to know what the tool produces.

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 description includes a clear cost warning ('5,000 credits (Tier 7)') and a direct instruction to 'Confirm with user before invoking', which is useful usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this reports variant over astroway_vedic_kundli or other report siblings.

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