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

Annotations cover the write/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds context annotations cannot carry: the 5,000-credit Tier 7 cost, its share of the free budget, and the instruction to confirm with the user — meaningful for an expensive, non-idempotent generation call. It still says nothing about what is produced (URL, bytes, storage).

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 content inventory, followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required param and cost. Little waste, though the bracketed block partially restates what structured fields already convey.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the cost/confirmation guidance is the most important missing piece — it is covered. But a tool taking whitelabel, language and compact fields produces a document whose format is only implied ('Bodygraph PDF' vs the title's 'PDF or HTML'), leaving the delivery format ambiguous for a premium call.

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 60%, and the schema itself does the heavy lifting, especially for the deeply-documented chart object. The description only flags 'Required: chart' and adds no meaning for fields, language, precision, or whitelabel. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (generate a Human Design report / bodygraph PDF) and enumerates exactly what the document contains: Type, Strategy, Authority, Profile, Definition, Not-Self theme, Incarnation Cross, 9 centers, activated channels. This distinguishes it from the raw-data sibling astroway_hd_human_design, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 cost tag gives real operational guidance ('Confirm with user before invoking', ~50% of free monthly budget) and 'Required: chart' sets the precondition. However, it never says when to choose this report tool over astroway_hd_human_design or the generic astroway_reports_generate, so routing is left to inference.

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