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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the credit cost (50 credits, Tier 3) and group, which are useful operational facts, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, return shape, or dependency on a prior HD calculation.

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 compact sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by useful bracketed metadata. No sentence is wasted, and the size is appropriate for a tool whose return values are covered by the output schema.

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?

For a 15-parameter, Tier 3 tool with many adjacent HD siblings, the description is minimal: it conveys what is computed and the cost but omits usage context, prerequisites, and parameter guidance. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the definition is still thin for the tool's complexity.

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 schema documents only 5 of 15 parameters (33% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. Required parameters like date, time, latitude, and longitude are not mentioned in the description, so an agent must rely entirely on the schema; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Gene Keys hologenetic profile') and names the three sub-sequences, so the output is clear. It does not differentiate from the many sibling HD tools (e.g. astroway_hd_human_design) or say what makes this profile distinct, so it stops short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'from HD gate activations' hints at input dependency but does not tell an agent when to choose this over astroway_hd_human_design or astroway_hd_design_date.

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