Marketing Style

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it is 'element-based' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like what happens with invalid input or the nature of the output. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds marginal value beyond them.

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 to the point, with a clear purpose and an example to illustrate usage. The group label is a helpful structural element. The example could be more concise, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description lacks detail about the return value or output format, and there is no output schema to compensate. It mentions 'marketing voice and campaign style' but does not describe what the agent should expect. Given 7 parameters and complex astrology, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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 each parameter is already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any new meaning or context for the parameters beyond the example request body. Baseline score of 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 'Element-based marketing voice and campaign style,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to analyze or generate marketing style based on astrological elements. The group label 'Business Astrology' and example input further clarify. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'calculate' or 'analyze') and could more distinctly differentiate from siblings 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives an implicit context via the group label and example. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.

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