HD Time Sensitivity

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real context beyond them: the cost (50 credits, Tier 3), the POST endpoint, and that the output is a stability/transition window series. It says nothing about tolerance settings, step granularity, or how wide the examined time span is.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that do their job with no waste, followed by a compact metadata block whose cost and required-parameter lines earn their place. Slightly terse for the parameter complexity.

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 tool with thin schema descriptions, an output schema and a cheap-annotation profile, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves the agent guessing about which of the optional astrological parameters matter for an HD sensitivity run and how wide a time window is examined.

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 — but it mentions no parameters at all beyond the implicit birth time. Required vs optional fields, and the role of zodiacType/houseSystem (which are arguably irrelevant to HD type/authority), go 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 description uses a specific verb and object ('Analyze how sensitive the HD chart type/authority is to birth time changes') and states the shape of the result ('windows where the chart is stable vs. in transition'). It does not name the nearest sibling (e.g. astroway_prognostics_rectification) that an agent might confuse it with, 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?

The use case is implied — you would call it when a birth time is uncertain — but nothing states that condition explicitly, nor when to prefer the rectification or human_design siblings instead. Adequate context, no routing guidance.

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