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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — a 50-credit Tier 3 cost — but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., that birth date/time/location are needed) or how the chart is computed from the inputs.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by short bracketed metadata tags. Nothing is wasted, though the tags are slightly separated from the substantive content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 15-parameter astrological calculation tool the description is very thin: no mention of required inputs, no routing against the large family of HD siblings, and no guidance on the sidereal/tropical or timezone options an agent must choose.

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 33% across 15 parameters, and the description adds zero parameter information — no mention of date, time, latitude/longitude, ayanamsa, timezone, or the compact-mode 'fields'/'precision' options. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('the Dream Rave chart'), then enumerates the outputs (sleep type, active gates in Sacral/Solar Plexus/Root, dream themes). This distinguishes it from other HD siblings like penta or incarnation cross by content, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no conditions that would steer an agent here rather than to astroway_hd_human_design or the other Human Design tools. The only bracketed metadata is group and cost, which is not usage guidance.

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