Customer Archetype

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, which is acceptable but not enhanced. No contradictions with annotations.

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 is short and includes a group tag and example. The first sentence could be more precise, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the group label. Every element serves a purpose.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a persona description, traits). The example only shows input. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output and how to use the result.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the example request body, which just illustrates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it generates a 'Native customer persona' aligned with the founder's sun-sign brand voice, which gives a clear verb+resource. However, it is ambiguous about using full birth chart data instead of just sun sign, and it doesn't fully distinguish from other business astrology tools like 'business_founder_personality'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The group label 'Business Astrology' provides context, but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to sibling tools like 'business_founder_personality' or 'business_ideal_partner_sign'.

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