HD Circuitry Analysis

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 fully covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: a 20-credit (Tier 2) billing cost and the POST endpoint. It says nothing about response shape, but an output schema exists, so that gap is tolerable.

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 substantive sentence followed by four compact metadata lines; the purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler. The bracketed footer is dense and scannable rather than verbose.

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 13-parameter computational tool the description covers the domain output concept, the endpoint, the required inputs and the credit cost, and return values are handled by an existing output schema. What is missing is any explanation of the optional calculation options (ayanamsa school, zodiac type, house system) that materially change circuitry results, and any link to the surrounding HD tool family.

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 13 parameters and only 23% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate but adds nothing beyond restating the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude), which the schema already marks as required. The astronomically significant knobs — ayanamsa/ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, timezone vs timezoneOffset — are left entirely to the schema, and the interaction between timezone and timezoneOffset is never addressed.

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+resource ("Analyze ... Circuits and Sub-circuits ... in a Human Design chart") and scopes it precisely to circuitry derived from defined channels. It implicitly separates itself from the broader chart tools (astroway_hd_human_design, astroway_hd_incarnation_cross), but never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance and no named alternative such as astroway_hd_human_design for a full chart versus this circuitry-only slice. The only routing aid is the operational footer listing required inputs and cost, which is helpful for invocation but not for tool selection.

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