Human Design Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral/format context: centre identifiers are stable PascalCase values and are not localized, which affects how callers consume the response. It does not mention cost or latency in the prose (the credit/endpoint facts sit in the metadata block), so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a focused note on identifier stability. The identifier clarification is longer than it needs to be (the pipe-separated list plus the moon-phase comparison), but every sentence carries information.

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?

Output structure is covered by the existing output schema, so the description rightly skips return-value detail and documents the identifier convention instead. However, for a 13-parameter endpoint with low schema coverage and several astrological options that are non-obvious for a Human Design chart, the description leaves an agent without enough guidance to fill the body correctly.

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 is expected to compensate and does not. It gives no meaning for timezone vs. timezoneOffset, ayanamsa vs. ayanamsaId, zodiacType, houseSystem, or the optional name/city/cosmogram fields; only the required four are acknowledged in the metadata block. Unusual parameters for a Human Design chart (houseSystem, ayanamsa) are left entirely unexplained.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Calculate'), resource ('full Human Design BodyGraph chart') and enumerates the exact outputs (type, strategy, authority, profile, definition, incarnation cross, centers, channels, gate activations). The word 'full' implicitly separates it from partial siblings like astroway_hd_incarnation_cross or astroway_hd_circuitry, though it never names those alternatives.

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 guidance about when to call this versus the many other HD tools (astroway_hd_hologenetic, astroway_hd_penta, astroway_hd_sensitivity, astroway_reports_human_design). The remainder of the text is about output identifier formatting, not usage conditions or prerequisites.

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