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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds materially useful context the annotations lack: the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and that the output is four cycles with age boundaries.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the group and cost tags are compact and useful. Slightly fragmented into bracketed metadata rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations plus cost line cover the safety/price envelope. The remaining gap is the absence of any input guidance for a name-based numerological calculation, which is the one thing an agent would most need beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. With only 50% schema description coverage, the two required parameters (name, date) carry no explanation anywhere — the agent gets no help on whose name to supply or that last names/formatting matter for a Kabbalistic calculation. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('Calculate four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries') and pins the computation system ('Kabbalistic (Mathers strict) system'), which distinguishes it from the Chaldean/Pythagorean/Vedic and non-strict Kabbalistic pinnacle siblings. It does not, however, explain how the strict variant differs from astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_pinnacles.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The system label implies the selection context, but the description never tells the agent to prefer this over the standard Kabbalistic or other pinnacle tools when the user specifies the Mathers method.

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