Human Design Chart

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing what the tool calculates (centers, channels, gates), which is beyond the annotations and clarifies the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 concise with two sentences plus a group/cost line and example. It front-loads the primary purpose and output components without unnecessary detail.

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?

While the description lists output components, it lacks explanation for the 11 input parameters and return format. Given the complexity and absence of output schema, more detail on parameter semantics and output structure would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but only provides an example request body covering 5 of 11 parameters. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like houseSystem, zodiacType, ayanamsaId, 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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates a full Human Design BodyGraph chart and lists specific components (type, strategy, authority, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like human_design_compatibility and human_design_transits.

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 versus alternatives. It implies single chart calculation but provides no when-not or alternative guidance, leaving it to context inference.

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