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.