AstroWay Human Design

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns a 'plain-text human-readable summary' and clarifies the budget-checking purpose, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format (plain-text human-readable summary). For a simple status check tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by hinting at the output format.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'API key status' with specific attributes (tier, credit balance, rate limits, monthly cycle reset). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling astrology calculation tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to run this tool BEFORE invoking expensive endpoints, providing credit thresholds (Tier 4+ at 100+ credits, Tier 6/7 at 500-5000 credits) to confirm budget.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful guarantee that the emitted schema is the schema the endpoint validates and that the objects carry no vendor-specific fields, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or response size behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

The visible portion is front-loaded on what is returned and the two format shapes, with no filler. It is somewhat terse for a tool with six parameters and a listed default/select semantics, but every visible sentence carries information.

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, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The remaining gap is routing: nothing tells the agent when to choose this over astroway_mcp_tools_list or similar listing tools.

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 100%, so every one of the six parameters is already documented in the schema, including the format enum and the select/fields/precision semantics. The description restates the format option rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returning agent tool definitions generated from the live OpenAPI document, in either OpenAI or Anthropic shape. That is clear enough to differentiate it from report/chart tools in the namespace, but it never names the closest sibling (astroway_mcp_tools_list) or explains the distinction, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no stated alternative. The mention of `format=openai` as the default is parameter behavior, not a usage rule, and the agent is left to infer whether this is for building an agent, curated retrieval, or an MCP tool listing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by clarifying that endpoints are NOT invoked and that results are cached with a 5-minute TTL. It also discloses the return shape (total + per-endpoint breakdown with tier annotations), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and the non-invocation guarantee, followed by workflow guidance and the cache note. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value, and the invocation-free and cache behaviors are covered. For a one-parameter, read-only estimator this is fully sufficient.

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 100% and the single 'endpoints' parameter is fully documented with examples and the leading-slash rule in the schema. The description only restates 'one or more endpoints' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Estimate the credit cost of one or more endpoints') and immediately pins the scope with 'WITHOUT invoking them', which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this from the many invocation/report siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: 'estimate first, ask user confirmation, then invoke' for multi-step planning. This is clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost (20 credits, Tier 2), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about return contents, required chart state, or limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, plus a compact metadata block. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description omits how the chart inputs drive the circuit result and gives no clue about the many optional astrology parameters, leaving the definition at minimum viability.

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 contributes zero parameter meaning — it never mentions date, time, latitude, longitude, or the ayanamsa/zodiac/house-system options. The burden falls entirely on the schema, which leaves several parameters undocumented, so the description fails to 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?

The description names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (the 3 Circuits and 6 Sub-circuits in a Human Design chart), and scopes the analysis to activation 'based on defined channels'. That is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings such as astroway_hd_human_design or astroway_hd_penta, though it never 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (a computed chart / defined channels), and no routing to alternatives among the many HD siblings. The '[Group: Human Design]' tag and cost tier are metadata, not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conceptual nature of the value ('unconscious imprinting point') and the cost/tier, but does not explain that it internally computes a chart, what precision/fields/compact mode do, or any deterministic-computation caveats. With annotations carrying safety, 3 is appropriate.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and economical, defining the value in one clause. The bracketed group/cost lines add metadata that is relevant for an agent but slightly dilutes the pure definitional sentence. No wasted words otherwise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a 15-param tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description offers no pointer to the shared chart parameters (house system, zodiac, ayanamsa) or defaults, which an agent using this among 26 siblings would benefit from.

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%, but the description itself does not explain any of the 15 parameters; the fields that carry descriptions (timezone, timezoneOffset, fields, precision, ayanamsa) have extensive schema docs, while required date/time/lat/long are self-evident. The description adds no parameter guidance, so it neither compensates for the gap nor leverages the docs.

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?

It states a specific verb (find) and resource (Design date) plus a precise definition: 'the moment 88° of solar arc before birth'. That definition uniquely distinguishes it among the HD siblings (hologenetic, incarnation_cross, etc.). It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, which keeps it from a 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?

Usage is implied by the concept's definition – an agent doing HD work knows to call this for the Design point. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling astroway_hd_human_design or hologenetic chart tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description earns credit by disclosing billing behaviour the schema and annotations omit entirely: 100 credits at Tier 4, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 followed by compact structured tags for group and cost. The purpose is front-loaded, nothing is repeated, and every element carries information.

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 cost plus participant minimum are covered. The remaining gap is routing: an agent cannot tell from this text when to pick the overlay over the compatibility or penta tools.

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 67% and the schema itself already documents the tricky fields (timezone, timezoneOffset, houseSystem letters, fields, precision) in detail. The description adds only the participant-count constraint, restating minItems rather than explaining the array shape or per-person requirements.

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 and resource ('Calculate a combined HD group overlay chart') plus its scope ('for 2 or more people') and output ('collectively defined centers and channels'). It implicitly separates itself from compatibility/penta siblings, but never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the closely related siblings (hd_human_design_compatibility, hd_penta, hd_circuitry) that an agent must choose between. The only eligibility hint is the implicit '2 or more people' from the schema's minItems.

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

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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful interface behavior by specifying stable PascalCase center identifiers and how channels[].centerA/centerB reference them, which helps an agent parse results consistently.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then moves to stable identifier details; the sentences appear to earn their place. It is slightly weighted toward output identifier explanation, but there is little obvious filler.

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?

The tool is complex (15 parameters) and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so the description need not explain all return values. However, it omits usage guidance against numerous siblings and input-parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an agent selecting and invoking it.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the 15 input parameters. It discusses output center identifiers instead of required inputs like date, time, latitude, and longitude, so it fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate a full Human Design BodyGraph chart,' then enumerates outputs such as type, strategy, authority, profile, incarnation cross, centers, channels, and gate activations. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from specialty siblings like astroway_hd_incarnation_cross or astroway_hd_human_design_compatibility.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. With many Human Design siblings available, this absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a materially useful operational fact the structured fields do not carry: this is a paid Tier 4 operation costing 100 credits. It still omits auth requirements and any note that both charts need accurate birth times, so it is not a 5.

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 dense lines: the action, its two-person scope and the returned connection types come first, with group and cost tags trailing. No sentence is wasted and nothing is repeated from the 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?

With a rich nested schema plus an output schema, the agent has what it needs on inputs and returns, and the description supplies purpose and cost. It is only slightly short of complete because it gives no guidance on mismatched timezone conventions between the two charts or on the accuracy requirement for both birth times.

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 100% and the nested chart objects carry unusually thorough field documentation (timezone/offset handling, rejected short forms, houseSystem letters), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Human Design connection chart) with the two-person scope made explicit, plus the exact channel categories returned (electromagnetic, compromise, dominance, companionship). It implicitly separates itself from single-chart HD siblings by 'between two people', but never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 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?

The two-person scope implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not and no routing to similar multi-person siblings such as astroway_hd_group_overlay or astroway_hd_penta. An agent must infer the boundary from purpose alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context not in annotations - the 50-credit Tier 3 cost - but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what the overlay does to the response shape.

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 core action front-loaded, followed by the optional mode. The bracketed group/cost metadata is structured housekeeping rather than prose, so nothing is wasteful.

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, and the input schema fully documents the birth-data, natal-overlay, fields and precision parameters. Purpose and cost are covered; only the usage/routing context is thin, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 100% and the nested birth-data object carries extensive field documentation (timezone semantics, houseSystem letter case, rejected short forms), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond mentioning that the natal overlay is optional, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Calculate current Human Design transit activations') and names the optional natal overlay behavior, which is enough to separate it from the natal-chart sibling astroway_hd_human_design. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

The description explains what the overlay does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against siblings such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit or astroway_hd_group_overlay. The natal-overlay mode is described as a capability, not as a condition that selects this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context (50-credit Tier 3 cost, and the three fields returned), but says nothing about credit consumption on failure, required account state, or the accuracy constraints of the birth-data path.

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 plus compact metadata lines; the core purpose and return contents are front-loaded with no filler. The 'Includes cross name, type, and theme description' clause is mildly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 astronomical tool with extensive sidereal/house-system options, the description is too thin: it never addresses timezone/offset handling, ayanamsa selection, or the compact 'fields'/'precision' modes, and it leaves the gate-numbers alternative unsubstantiated. The output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the invocation side remains under-explained.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, yet it explains none of them. Worse, the claim that the cross can be derived 'directly from gate numbers' has no counterpart in the schema, where date, time, latitude and longitude are all required — a misleading signal about how the tool can actually be invoked.

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 (Return) and resource (Incarnation Cross), and clarifies the two input routes plus what the payload contains (name, type, theme). It does not name or distinguish itself from the many sibling HD tools (hologenetic, circuitry, penta), so an agent must infer the boundary from the domain term alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling Human Design tools an agent should choose instead for related outputs. The parenthetical '(or directly from gate numbers)' hints at an alternative input mode but is never tied to a condition or to any concrete parameter.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description's one genuine addition is the billing profile ('100 credits (Tier 4)'), which an agent cannot get from the annotations, but it says nothing about what the Penta computation requires or how it differs behaviorally from a single-chart call.

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?

One compact sentence plus bracketed metadata lines; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as a structural matter it is tight and readable.

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 not be explained, and the credit cost is disclosed. However, for a group-chart tool with a near-identical sibling, the description omits any statement of when this is the right choice over astroway_hd_group_overlay, which is the main contextual gap.

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 67% and the nested birth-data object is documented in detail in the schema itself (date/time patterns, timezone semantics, rejected short forms). The description contributes only the '3–5 people' cardinality, which the schema already encodes, so baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('Calculate the Penta (group) chart') plus a precise scope ('3–5 people') and the conceptual output ('combined BodyGraph showing group dynamics and collective conditioning'). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling astroway_hd_group_overlay, which an agent would plausibly confuse with this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives. The only implied constraint, 3–5 people, is already enforced by the schema's minItems/maxItems, so the description adds no usage direction of its own.

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

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 description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the 50-year range cap and the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, neither of which appears in structured fields. It stops short of describing what happens on an over-range request.

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 front-loaded sentences: the operation first, the hard constraint second, with no filler. The bracketed group/cost metadata is compact and clearly segregated from the functional description.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety semantics. With the operation, the event definition, the range limit, and the cost all stated, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: 'fields' and 'precision' are well documented in the schema, while the two required parameters (startYear/endYear) carry no schema description. The description partially compensates by framing them as a bounded year range with a 50-year maximum, but adds no type, format, or ordering detail beyond that.

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 and resource ('Calculate Rave New Year dates') and even defines the underlying astronomical event ('exact moment Sun enters Gate 41'), which is far more than the title conveys. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as astroway_hd_dream_rave or astroway_hd_design_date.

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 bounds usage with 'for a range of years' and an explicit 'Max range: 50 years' limit, so an agent knows when the tool cannot be applied. It names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance relative to the other Human Design siblings.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it discloses what is actually returned (stability/transition windows) and the credit cost (50 credits, Tier 3), which helps an agent decide whether to spend the call.

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 front-loaded sentences that state purpose then return value, plus compact group/cost metadata. No filler, though the group/cost bracket is boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance.

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 not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without guidance on the required inputs or on the optional fields that matter for a sensitivity analysis.

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?

With 15 parameters and only ~33% schema description coverage, the description is the place to compensate, but it says nothing about parameters. The phrase 'birth time changes' faintly signals that date/time matter, but the four required inputs (date, time, latitude, longitude) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Analyze how sensitive the HD chart type/authority is to birth time changes') and explicitly states the output shape (stable vs. in-transition windows). No sibling among the HD tools covers time sensitivity, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use it when you need to know whether a birth time is precise enough for the chart type/authority), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative sibling. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behaviour, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful operational facts the annotations do not carry: the tool is an MCP Advanced feature costing 100 credits (Tier 4). It still says nothing about how rounds affect runtime or output, or whether chart context is mandatory for a meaningful debate.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by group and cost metadata; there is no filler or repetition. The brevity is somewhat a result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, but structurally it is clean.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: 8 parameters, a nested chart object with detailed validation rules, and an output schema. The description covers none of that complexity and omits the astrological framing entirely, leaving an agent to infer from the schema alone what inputs matter. Output format is covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable, but the rest is a real gap.

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 38% and several parameters (topic, agentA, agentB, rounds, language) carry no schema description, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not, adding no parameter meaning whatsoever. 'multi-round' only obliquely hints at the rounds parameter, and nothing explains what agentA/agentB strings should contain or how chart is consumed.

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 names a concrete verb and output ('2 personas debate a topic, multi-round transcript'), so an agent knows this produces a debate transcript rather than a single answer. However, it never differentiates itself from near-neighbours like astroway_mcp_ai_chat or astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate, and it omits that the debate is anchored to an astrological chart, which the schema makes clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of what situation calls for a two-persona debate over a single-shot chat, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only extra text is group and cost metadata, which is billing context rather than usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, but omits what the status payload represents or whether it reflects live pool state.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the one substantive fact, but the first sentence is a dangling fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose, and the bracket tags read as metadata padding rather than description.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description's remaining burden is small. It is still thin on what 'pool status' reports and when it should be invoked, leaving a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter status tool.

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 100% and both optional compaction parameters (fields, precision) are thoroughly documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 '8 personas with specialties' is a noun fragment that hints at the returned content but never states what the tool does or what 'pool status' means. It does not distinguish this from siblings like astroway_agent_tools or astroway_mcp_tools_list, which also concern agent/persona inventory.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the many sibling agent/tools-listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance offered is the cost tag '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]', which helps budget decisions but says nothing about selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), and the description usefully adds context beyond that: a 10-turn history cap, 21 supported languages, four persona voices, and a cost behavior where sending your own provider key drops the turn to 5 credits. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the chart object must contain to succeed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core differentiator ('answered from the positions we computed') before secondary facts about history, languages, and pricing. The trailing group/cost tags are metadata rather than prose, so there is minimal waste.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the AI-behavioral surface (grounding, history, language, persona, cost). For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and low schema coverage, it could say more about the chart input contract, but the essentials are present.

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 43%, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by explaining history (10 turns), language (21), and persona (four voices). However, it says nothing about the required `message`, the complex nested `chart`, or the compact-mode `fields`/`precision` parameters, leaving those to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — a chat grounded in computed chart positions rather than the model's sun-sign memory — which is clearly distinguishable from report-generation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative among the many AI siblings (explain_aspect, explain_transit, comparison_coach), so it falls short of a 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?

The description explains what the tool is but never says when to reach for it versus the other AI siblings or the narrative-report tools. No prerequisites or selection conditions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful cost context (100 credits, Tier 4) and group membership, but does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or what the AI coach actually returns. With annotations covering safety, this partial extra context merits a 3.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with cost and group metadata placed clearly after the core sentence. It wastes no words, although it is arguably too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 6-parameter tool with nested chart objects and multiple AI/synastry siblings, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain what 'coaching' entails or when to select this tool over alternatives, leaving a substantial contextual gap.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It says 'two charts' but does not clarify the role of the required question field, language, precision, or fields parameters, nor does it help compensate for the less-documented parameters.

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 names the resource (two charts) and domain (relationship dynamics), but the verb 'Coach' is vague about what the tool actually produces. It does not distinguish this from sibling reports like astroway_reports_ai_synastry_narrative, leaving an agent unsure whether this is an interactive coaching session, a report, or something else.

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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention when this tool should be chosen over similar two-chart tools such as synastry reports or multi-chart context, nor are any preconditions or exclusions stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the cost (100 credits, Tier 4), which is genuinely useful for an agent budgeting calls, but nothing is said about latency, auth, or output shape.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the terseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. The metadata lines consume half the length without adding invocation help.

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 prose, but the description leaves key input questions open: how planets must be named, which chart object is required for a natal calculation, and what the aspectType enum means in context. For a 7-parameter tool with a nested birth-data object, this is thin.

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 43%, and the undescribed parameters include the three required ones (planet1, planet2, aspectType). The phrase 'between two planets' loosely implies planet1/planet2 but gives no naming convention or accepted values, and aspectType, language, fields and precision get nothing despite the 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 and resource: an explanation of an aspect between two planets. An agent can tell what it does, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling astroway_mcp_ai_explain_transit, which is the nearest alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as explain_transit or the report tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful operational context by disclosing the cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the AI grouping, which helps an agent budget. It does not explain the non-idempotent nature of an AI-generated explanation or any latency/rate behavior, so it adds some but not rich value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the core purpose, with the group and cost tags kept as structured metadata rather than prose. It is tight and waste-free, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested chart object and five required fields, the description omits routing guidance against several plausible siblings and says nothing about the transit inputs. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the selection and input story is still incomplete.

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 38% and the five required parameters (chart, transitDate, transitPlanet, natalPlanet, aspectType) carry no schema descriptions at all. The description only obliquely implies a transit/natal pairing and says nothing about expected values or formats for those required fields, so it 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Explain' applied to 'a current transit hitting your natal chart.' An agent can tell what the tool produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as astroway_mcp_ai_explain_aspect or astroway_reports_ai_transit_narrative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The sentence implies the context (a transit to your natal chart) but gives no condition that would route an agent here instead of the aspect explainer or the transit narrative report. This matches the 'no guidance' band.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add parallel execution and a 100-credit Tier 4 cost, which is useful. However, it omits latency implications from LLM synthesis, auth requirements, and any detail about valid agent choices.

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?

The text is very short and front-loads the core action before the group and cost tags. No sentence is wasted, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than thorough contextual completeness.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested chart object, six parameters, required agent and question fields, and many sibling tools. The description explains almost none of that beyond a two-line summary and cost, leaving significant gaps even though an output schema exists for return values.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning for question, agents, chart, fields, language, or precision. In particular, the required 'agents' array and its 2-4 item constraint, as well as how 'chart' relates to the question, are left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a high-level verb and resource ('Run N personas in parallel + LLM synthesis') but does not define what a persona is, what is being coordinated, or how this differs from siblings such as astroway_mcp_agent_debate. The [Group] and [Cost] tags are metadata rather than purpose clarification.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The closest sibling, astroway_mcp_agent_debate, is not mentioned, and the cost tier alone does not tell an agent when this tool should be selected.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the cost tag (10 credits, Tier 1); it says nothing about batch limits, what the compact response excludes, or the idempotentHint=false implication that repeated calls may vary.

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?

The single sentence plus metadata tags are front-loaded and free of padding, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the sentence carries almost no callable information.

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 not be described, but for a tool with an enum-driven intent, a compact-mode fields selector and a 6-item batch cap, the description omits nearly everything an agent needs to choose and configure it.

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 50%, so the description is expected to compensate — and it does not. The compact-mode controls (fields, precision) and the intent enum are never mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to discover their meaning entirely from the schema.

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?

"Compact context for MCP agents working across multiple charts" restates the tool name (multi-chart context) without a concrete verb or resource for what is actually produced. It never says it computes natal chart data for multiple subjects, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling report/chart tools like astroway_reports_natal or astroway_reports_synastry.

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 only usage signal is the implied "working across multiple charts," from which an agent might infer batch multi-subject use. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of when a single-chart or report sibling is preferable, despite ~40 alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds cost and group context, which is useful, but does not disclose any operational behavior such as result format, ranking details, or rate-limit implications.

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?

The definition is very short and front-loads the core phrase before the bracketed metadata. There is no wasted prose, though the concision contributes to the broader underspecification problem rather than being a structural flaw itself.

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?

The tool takes five parameters including a nested chart object, exists among many siblings, and has an output schema. Despite that complexity, the description does not explain selection criteria, query semantics, or how this differs from report-generation tools, leaving it materially incomplete for agent routing.

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 moderate at 60%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not clarify what 'query' should contain, how 'topK' affects results, or how 'chart' is used, so key semantics remain dependent on the schema alone.

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 says 'Keyword-tag scoring over chart chunks,' which reveals the mechanism and resource type, but it never states the core action as a verb such as 'search' and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling retrieval/report tools. An agent can infer it is a retrieval tool, but the purpose remains vague.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It only supplies group and cost metadata, leaving the agent with no routing signal among the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: the response arrives as Server-Sent Events, and each call costs 100 credits (Tier 4). It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what the stream events look like, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the core capability, followed by two bracketed metadata tags. Very tight, though the group/cost tags sit after the payload rather than being folded in naturally.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested birth-chart object, no output schema, and only 60% schema description coverage, the definition is thin. It does not describe the streamed response shape, streaming lifecycle, or the required message parameter, and gives no guidance on how chart context should be formed.

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 coverage is 60% and the nested chart object carries extensive inline documentation that the description does not repeat. The 'optional chart context' phrase confirms the chart parameter exists but adds no semantics for message, language, fields, or precision, so it 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 and resource: an SSE streaming chat completion, with the chart-context option noted. It is clearer than a bare 'chat', but it never distinguishes itself from sibling astroway_mcp_ai_chat (presumably the non-streaming counterpart) or astroway_mcp_tool_call_stream, so the agent must guess which chat entry point to pick.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description notes that chart context is optional but never says when you should supply it or how it changes the answer, and it never mentions the sibling chat tools as alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. However, for a streaming tool it says nothing about stream termination, error semantics, or partial delivery, which is the behavior an agent most needs here.

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?

It is short and the core statement is front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the two bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate and the resulting length is too thin for the tool's complexity, so brevity here reads as under-specification rather than tightness.

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 tool with 5 parameters (including a nested arbitrary 'args' object), no output schema, and an opaque streaming return, the definition is far too thin: it never explains what the streamed envelope contains, how the stream ends, or how 'args' maps to the target tool. An agent must guess at most of the call contract.

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 40%: 'tool' (the sole required parameter) and 'args' carry no description, and 'language' has only an enum. The description supplies zero parameter guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter tool with a nested free-form object.

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?

It pairs a specific verb ('SSE-stream') with a resource ('tool call envelope'), which is more than a tautology, but 'tool call envelope' is unexplained jargon and the definition does nothing to separate it from close siblings like astroway_mcp_streaming or astroway_mcp_tools_list. An agent cannot tell from this text which one to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists for the same need. The only context is the group/cost tag, which tells the agent a price but not a use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a spec version and notes that cost is not in the public credit manifest, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what the manifest contains, how it is scoped, or any other operational behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is short and front-loads its main claim about being an auto-generated manifest. The bracketed group and cost lines add metadata without excessive verbosity. It is efficient, though the bracket metadata is only marginally useful for tool selection.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters do not need explanation in the description. However, the description remains thin on purpose and usage guidance, making it only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The low complexity of the tool keeps it from being inadequate, but notable gaps remain.

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 100%, so both parameters (fields and precision) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the input schema. With complete schema coverage and no additional description detail, a 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?

The description says it is an auto-generated tool manifest for MCP clients, which identifies the general resource but uses no action verb and does not explicitly state that it lists available MCP tools. It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as astroway_agent_tools or the MCP-related tools. Purpose is therefore implied rather than clearly stated.

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 only usage context is the phrase 'for MCP clients,' which implies an audience but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools. This is the same level as a definition that provides only an implied context.

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