Preview White-label Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: the output is a PDF, styling comes from the stored white-label config, and the call costs 5,000 credits (~50% of the free monthly budget) with an instruction to confirm with the user first. It stops short of stating how the PDF is delivered (URL vs inline) or whether repeated calls are cached, though the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the chart/omit choice, then the cost warning. The bracketed metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost) are useful but slightly redundant with the prose cost warning.

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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required preview tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, default behaviour, configuration source, and the notable credit cost. The only real omission is any mention of the `language` parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains `chart` well (optional; supplying it overrides the default Kyiv 1990 sample), but the `language` parameter and its 21-value enum are never mentioned in the description, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Render a sample natal report PDF' — and adds that it uses the authenticated user's white-label configuration (colours, font, footer, logo). The word 'sample'/'preview' implicitly distinguishes it from the real report generators, but no sibling (e.g. astroway_reports_natal, astroway_whitelabel_config) is named to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Gives clear operating instructions: pass `chart` for your own birth data, omit it to use the bundled Kyiv 1990 sample, and confirm with the user because of the credit cost. It does not, however, say when to prefer this preview over generating an actual report or over calling whitelabel_config.

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