Generate Synastry Report (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: premium cost (5000 credits, ~50% of free monthly budget) and a required user confirmation step. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Two concise sentences plus formatted metadata (group, cost). Front-loaded with core purpose, then cost warning. No unnecessary words; highly 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?

Covers purpose and cost well but lacks output format details (e.g., response is a PDF blob or URL). No output schema, so this information is needed. Given the tool's complexity and many sibling tools, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 50%, and the tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The example request body illustrates usage but does not explain parameters in the description text itself.

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 renders a synastry PDF report with specific contents (side-by-side Big Three, cross-chart aspects, element balance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'synastry' (raw data) and 'synastry_aspect_grid' by specifying PDF output.

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?

Includes a clear cost warning and requirement for user confirmation before invoking. However, it does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus other synastry-focused siblings like 'synastry_aspect_grid' or 'synastry_attraction_score'.

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