AI Monthly Narrative

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds cost (250 credits) and a heavy-use warning with explicit instruction to confirm with user, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 brief (two sentences plus cost note) and front-loaded with purpose. Minimal but effective; no redundant information. Slightly more structure could help readability, but overall it is concise.

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?

Given no output schema and many sibling AI reports, the description adequately explains the scope (single-month) and key differentiator (vs year-ahead), but doesn't detail return values, prerequisites, or compare to other monthly forecasts. It is minimally complete for a forecast 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 17% (chart has a description). The description merely lists parameter names (chart, year, month, language, tone, length) without adding meaning or constraints beyond what enums and schema already provide. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states 'Single-month forecast' with explicit differentiation from 'year-ahead' (sibling reports_ai_year_ahead_narrative) and specifies it uses planet transits. The verb 'forecast' and resource 'monthly narrative' are precise, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It contrasts with year-ahead implicitly, but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice or compare to other monthly tools like horoscope_monthly. The cost warning and 'confirm with user' are usage prompts, but lack broader guidance on alternatives.

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