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

Annotations already put a profile for a mutation-free operation (readOnly=true, destructive=false), and the description goes beyond to state how the specomputation behaves: classifies each of 36 channels into four connection mechanics and computes which person defines each spanned center in the connected graph. This color is well ahead of the basic indicator; the description did not build any contingency or what's validate on.

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?

Only three sentences; the first front-loads verb+resource+mechanics, the second lists the core classification model, the third summarizes the return components, and the 'Built for' phrase closes the use case. No redundancy with the schema, no filler — each sentence earns its space.

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?

Without a output schema, the description carries the return obligation and it satisfies it at a high level: channel dynamics, center definition states with per-person attribution, the combined definition, and dynamic counts. The only shortfalls are that some bodygraphdomain terms (the combined definition) are assumed to be knowable and no exact return shape or exception/validation behavior is mentioned — minor, given the 100% input coverage.

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?

The input schema is 100% described: both tempiPersonA / personB fully specify birth fields (date, time, timezone with IANA precedence, nodeType with true-vs-mean advice) and lang / compact both document essentials — the description handles no additional parameter meaning, while the calculation description implies inputs are two dramas. At 100% coverage, the description need not carry a pin, only sloping to the schema; a 3 based on the fully covered schema 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?

Defines especific verb+resource pair — 'Calculate a Human Design connection chart by overlaying two bodygraphs' — and specifies what the output contains: 36 channels classified into four dynamics, centers with per-person definitions, and the joined definition. It distinguishes itself from sibling off diluted single-chart tools because it propages a two-per concerned... response...

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?

'Built for relationship, dating, and coaching tools' states the usage background, and 'overlaying two bodygraphs' differentiates it in a way that a single-chart sibling (post_human_design_bodygraph) or a group-composite chart would not. What's missing? An explicit 'don't use this for a single bodygraph — use X instead' and: mention that a Penta/composite sibling should be chosen for more than two people.

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