Incarnation Cross

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true; the description adds useful context about the output content (cross name, type, theme) and cost, which complements annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences plus group/cost and a single example — concise, front-loaded with core purpose, no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description only covers output content and one example. It lacks explanations for most parameters and does not differentiate from other HD tools, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides an example request body that clarifies usage of required parameters (date, time) and some optional ones (timezoneOffset, lat, lon), but does not explain other parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, or cosmogram, leaving gaps.

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?

Clearly states it 'Return the Incarnation Cross' from birth data or gate numbers, and specifies output includes cross name, type, and theme. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling HD tools.

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?

Mentions two input modes (birth data or gate numbers) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Human Design tools like hd_circuitry or human_design. No alternatives or context for selection.

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