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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description usefully adds cost transparency (10 credits, Tier 1), which is genuine behavioral context beyond 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the metadata blocks (group, cost, alias) are compact and useful. No wasted prose.

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?

For a simple calculation tool with annotations and an output schema, most of the burden is covered elsewhere. However, the three required parameters carry no meaning in either the schema or description, which is a real completeness gap.

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 only 40%: name, date, and year are required but undocumented in both schema and description, and the description explains no parameters at all. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the three required inputs semantically opaque.

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 (Calculate) and resource (Personal Year number for a given calendar year) with the cycle concept explained. The 'Pythagorean system' tag does distinguish it from the chaldean/kabbalistic/vedic personal_year siblings, though it never explicitly routes between them.

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 guidance. The only usage note is that it is a Cursor-friendly alias for the canonical tool, which is minor. An agent gets no help choosing between this and the other personal_year variants or the canonical name.

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