Incarnation Cross

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 output shape (name, type, theme) and the derivation rule tying sun lines/profile to angle type. It omits nothing critical, though it does not clarify whether birth-data vs. gate-number results differ in shape.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the input/angle rule; the metadata block is compact. The angle-derivation sentence is dense but relevant to the output, and 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 needn't be spelled out, and the cost/endpoint line adds useful operational context. But for a 13-parameter tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves most optional parameters unexplained and describes a gate-number mode the schema does not support.

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 must compensate and largely does not — ayanamsa/ayanamsaId interplay, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city, and name are never mentioned. It only restates the four required parameters, which the schema's 'required' array already communicates.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return the Incarnation Cross') and enumerates the returned fields (cross name, type, theme description), which is more than the title alone conveys. It does not name any of the hd_* siblings (e.g. astroway_hd_hologenetic, astroway_hd_human_design) to distinguish scope, so it stops short of 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?

It offers two entry paths (birth data or raw gate numbers) and explains how the angle is decided, which implies usage. However, the gate-number path is not representable in the schema — there is no gate/line parameter — so the guidance describes an invocation the agent cannot actually perform, leaving the real 'when to use this vs. other HD tools' question unaddressed.

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