explore_human_design_connection

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

Discloses behaviors beyond annotations: 3-credit cost, Premium tier requirement, NASA JPL DE440 ephemerides, interactive bodygraph with text fallback, and OpenEphemeris affiliation disclaimer. These give the agent a clear picture of side effects (cost, host dependencies) and data source without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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?

Four focused sections: purpose, cost, classifications, return format, then additional context. Slightly verbose with ephemerides and origin details, but every sentence adds useful context and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

This is a complex tool (nested params, enums, no output schema). The description covers return format with fallback ('interactive two-person overlay bodygraph... text summary fallback'), classification categories, cost, and data source. It stops short of describing exact text summary fields, but overall sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself provides rich descriptions (e.g., location resolution, theme default, layout behavior). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Compare two people's Human Design charts and classify every connected channel by HD connection theory,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The annotation title adds 'Synastry' for further clarity. This clearly distinguishes it from single-chart tools like explore_human_design and explore_natal_chart.

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?

Provides clear usage context: comparing two charts for HD connection theory, with classifications listed and a note about premium tier. It implies this is for synastry vs single-chart tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, leaving the distinction from ephemeris_synastry implicit.

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