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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered structurally. The description adds non-derivable behavioral context that the schema cannot express: the 5,000-credit Tier 7 cost and its share of the free monthly budget, plus an explicit confirmation requirement. It does not restate the idempotency or external-side-effect hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the report's contents, then a compact cost/warning block. Every element earns its place, though sentence one is a dense comma-list that reads more like an inventory than prose.

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-value description is not required, and the content list tells the agent what the report will say. It omits how the artifact is delivered, and the title advertises 'PDF or HTML' while the description says only 'Bodygraph PDF', leaving the output format ambiguous.

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 60%, and the description contributes nothing about any of the five parameters — nothing on chart/birth data, language, fields, precision, or whitelabel branding. The richly documented 'chart' object in the schema carries the load, but fields, precision, language and whitelabel remain unexplained in both places.

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 enumerates exactly what the Human Design report contains (Type, Strategy, Authority, Profile, Definition, Not-Self theme, Incarnation Cross, 9 centers, activated channels), which makes the tool's output unmistakable. The verb comes from the title ('Generate ... Report') rather than the description, and it does not explicitly position itself against sibling report tools, but 'Human Design' is a unique domain no sibling covers.

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?

It gives a real usage gate — 'Premium — ~50% of free monthly budget. Confirm with user before invoking' — which is genuinely actionable. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over the many other report siblings (natal, stellaforge, generate) or what prerequisites the chart data must satisfy.

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