Human Design Transit Timeline

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the credit-cost schedule tied to range length and the fact that output is per gate entry and exit (row volume grows with include_lines). That pricing/consumption disclosure is real context beyond the structured fields, but return payload shape is only loosely sketched.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a separate credit-cost line, front-loaded with the when-to-use trigger. No filler, though the credit line could be formatted more consistently with the rest.

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?

With nine parameters fully documented in schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: usage trigger, the two data-source modes, and cost scaling. The return value (per-gate entry/exit rows, optional line stays) is described enough to set expectations.

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 100%, so parameters are already self-documenting, and the description largely restates the birth-data vs natal_gates alternative that the schema already states. It adds only the indirect signal that longer start_date/end_date ranges cost more credits.

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 names a concrete resource (transit gate entry/exit timeline) and grounds it with two illustrative user questions, so an agent can tell this produces a time-ordered gate transit table rather than a single-moment chart. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (explore_human_design_transit, explore_transit_timeline) to draw the boundary, which keeps it at 4.

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?

"Use this when the user asks 'when does transiting Saturn enter my gate 34'..." gives a clear triggering condition, and the birth-data/natal_gates clause explains the second mode of use. There is no statement about when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick instead, so 4.

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