HD Time Sensitivity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns stability/transition windows and includes cost and group info. However, it does not elaborate on what the output looks like or any behavioral quirks, so it's adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes the example and metadata efficiently. Every element earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given 11 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and numerous sibling HD tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter meanings, output format, and how this tool compares to similar HD tools like hd_design_date or hd_incarnation_cross.

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 0%, meaning the parameter properties have no descriptions. The description only provides an example request body but does not explain the meaning or purpose of most parameters (e.g., houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId). With 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and the specific resource 'HD chart type/authority', and explains that it returns windows of stability vs. transition. This distinguishes it from other HD tools like human_design or hd_circuitry which have different focuses.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied through the description of functionality, but given the many sibling HD tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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