AI Synastry Narrative

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only a cost warning and the fact it generates a narrative, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, permissions, or what happens to existing data. Given the annotations already cover some aspects, the description adds minimal value.

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 very short and to the point, but it lacks structure such as separating purpose from usage or providing bullet points. It is concise but could be better organized without adding length.

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 the complexity of tool (two nested chart objects, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (what the narrative contains), the relationship between chart1 and chart2 (e.g., which person is which), or any prerequisites. The cost warning is the only additional context.

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 low (40%), and the description merely lists input names ('chart1, chart2, language, tone, length') without adding any meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., schema descriptions for chart objects include format details). No explanation of enums or how parameters affect the output.

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 it generates a 'long-form relationship narrative grounded in cross-chart aspects,' which precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from single-chart narratives (e.g., reports_ai_natal_narrative) and non-narrative synastry tools (e.g., synastry).

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 cost warning ('⚠️ Heavy — confirm with user before invoking') advising caution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reports_synastry or other AI reports. No differentiation or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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