Hologenetic Profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the endpoint, the required-argument set, and a concrete cost of 50 credits (Tier 3). What it does not say is whether the calculation is deterministic across optional parameters or how expensive failures are handled.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the remaining metadata is compressed into tagged lines with no filler. The 'Required:' line duplicates the schema's required array, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 cost/endpoint metadata is present. However, with 13 parameters and 23% schema coverage, an agent is left guessing whether ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem or cosmogram meaningfully change a Gene Keys result, which is a real gap for a 50-credit call.

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%: ayanamsa, timezone and timezoneOffset are documented in-schema, while city, name, cosmogram, zodiacType, houseSystem and ayanamsaId carry no explanation anywhere. The description adds nothing here beyond listing the four required names, which the schema already marks required, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

A specific verb (Calculate) plus a named resource (Gene Keys hologenetic profile) with its three constituent sequences spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what output to expect. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring HD tools such as astroway_hd_human_design or astroway_hd_incarnation_cross, which keeps it off 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 only implied: 'from HD gate activations' signals the input domain, and the '[Group: Human Design]' tag situates it, but there is no statement of when to pick this over other HD or Gene Keys tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Required: date, time, latitude, longitude' line just restates the schema.

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