HD Compatibility

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the operation is calculating a connection chart, and includes cost and group info. No contradictions with 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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes group, cost, and a helpful example. Every sentence is meaningful with no waste.

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 two-chart tool with no output schema, the description lacks details on what the output contains (e.g., list of channels or interpretations). The example helps but does not specify return format or prerequisites.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description provides an example request body showing structure, which adds value beyond schema alone. However, it does not detail each parameter further.

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 it calculates Human Design connection chart (compatibility) between two people, listing specific channels like electromagnetic connections, compromise, dominance, and companionship. This distinguishes it from single-chart tools like human_design and other compatibility 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?

The description implies usage for HD compatibility but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like synastry or other HD tools. The example is helpful but lacks context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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