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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the POST endpoint, the credit cost (50 credits, Tier 3), and which inputs are mandatory, which matters for budgeting and for a metered API.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and followed by compact bracketed metadata; nothing is padded. The metadata lines are terse and skimmable, though they could be folded more tightly.

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 cover safety. However, for a 15-parameter metered tool at 33% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on which optional parameters matter for a Dream Rave computation or when this chart is the right call, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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, so the description is expected to compensate. It only restates the four required fields, which the schema's own 'required' array already conveys, and says nothing about timezone/timezoneOffset handling, ayanamsa, houseSystem, fields, or precision for this chart type.

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 Dream Rave chart') and enumerates the distinctive outputs (sleep type, active gates in lower centers, dream themes), which separates it from neighboring HD tools like astroway_hd_human_design or astroway_hd_hologenetic. It stops short of explicitly naming when a sibling is the better choice, so it is clear-but-not-disambiguating.

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 operational guidance is the [Required] and [Cost] metadata lines; there is no statement of when to reach for Dream Rave versus other HD charts, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The '[Group: Human Design]' tag groups it but does not route the agent.

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