hd_planetary_return

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds credit cost (2 credits per call) and output format options (json/llm), which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions observed.

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 (10 lines) with clear front-loading of purpose. Bullet points for key returns and an example make it scannable. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and simple annotations. The description covers purpose, credit cost, example, output formats, and key returns. It lacks error handling or edge cases, but is adequate for typical use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value: example usage for the return_year parameter, mention of 'compact projection' for format='llm', and example Saturn return. It does not significantly extend the schema's explanations.

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 Human Design planetary return chart, listing specific outputs (type, strategy, authority, gates, channels). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Human Design' and referencing HD-relevant planets, differentiating it from the ephemeris version.

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 lists key returns and provides an example, which implies usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ephemeris_planetary_return. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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