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

Read-only/idempotent safety is already covered by annotations, and the description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint, the required parameter, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. That cost disclosure is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call a composite endpoint. It does not, however, describe response shape or any rate-limit behavior.

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?

One front-loaded content sentence followed by compact bracketed metadata lines for group, endpoint, required param, and cost. No wasted prose and the distinguishing information comes first.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and it supplies cost, endpoint, and required input. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on choosing this composite over the individual Mayan sibling tools.

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%; the schema itself documents 'fields' and 'precision' thoroughly, while 'date' carries only a pattern. The description adds only the '[Required: date]' flag, which the schema's required array already conveys, so it adds little beyond structured data. Baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific aggregate resource and enumerates the five components it returns (Long Count, Tzolkin, Haab, Calendar Round, Lord of the Night), which cleanly distinguishes it from the single-component siblings like astroway_mayan_long_count and astroway_mayan_tzolkin. Minor flaw: it says 'four' components but lists five, a small internal inconsistency.

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 'in one call' implies the tool is the composite alternative to the individual Mayan endpoints, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over calling the single-component tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so usage must be inferred.

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