Dream Rave

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's real addition is the billing tier (50 credits, Tier 3) and the POST endpoint, which an agent should know before calling; it says nothing about latency, failure modes, or validation behavior.

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 plus compact bracketed metadata; every line is scannable and none is filler. Slightly formulaic but appropriate for a spec-style entry.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 13-parameter, 50-credit calculation the definition omits any guidance on the optional astronomical parameters that materially change the result, which leaves 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 23% across 13 parameters, so the description needs to carry meaning for the optional astrological controls. It only restates the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) and says nothing about houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, cosmogram, city, or name, leaving most of the surface undocumented in the prose.

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 (Dream Rave chart) and enumerates the outputs: sleep type, active gates in lower centers, dream themes. That makes it distinguishable from generic Human Design siblings like astroway_hd_human_design, though it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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 bracketed metadata gives the group, endpoint, required inputs, and cost, which implies you call it with birth data when a Dream Rave chart is wanted. But there is no statement of when to prefer it over related HD tools or any preconditions beyond the required-field list.

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