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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the credit cost/tier and frames the calculation as a modern reinterpretation, but adds little else about behavior beyond the 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?

Front-loads the identity and return shape, then compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint, required param, and cost. No wasted sentences, though the bracketed block is somewhat boilerplate.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish identity, differentiation, and the required input, all of which it does. Cost/tier is a useful extra for an agent weighing calls.

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 67%: 'fields' and 'precision' are well documented in the schema, while 'date' only carries a regex pattern with no description. The prose adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for mostly-covered params is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (Dreamspell / Argüelles synchronometer) and its output shape (kin 1-260 + tone + seal). It also distinguishes itself from the traditional Tzolkin, which is the key sibling confusion in this group, though it doesn't name the sibling tool explicitly.

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 phrase 'Distinct from traditional Tzolkin' implies when to choose this over the Tzolkin tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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