Generate Year-Ahead Transit (PDF or HTML)

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, but the description adds the critical behavioral detail that this is a premium-cost tool consuming significant credits. It also specifies the output format (PDF) and contents, going beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with the core purpose, plus a cost warning and an example. Every part is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 (nested chart object, no output schema), the description covers the main output (PDF), what aspects are included, default year, and cost. It provides a full example request. It could mention that language and whitelabel affect output, but for a typical agent the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description provides some context (e.g., year defaults to next calendar year) and an example request body, but does not explain parameters like 'language' or 'whitelabel' in detail. The schema already defines them, so the description adds minimal additional meaning.

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 the tool renders a year-ahead transit calendar PDF grouped by month, with specific aspects (conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition) of outer planets to natal positions at 0.5° max orb. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'reports_ai_year_ahead_narrative' or 'transit_calendar'.

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 ('~50% of free monthly budget. Confirm with user before invoking.') and notes the default year behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transit_calendar' or 'reports_ai_year_ahead_narrative', nor excludes scenarios.

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