Personal Cycles

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the tool's safety profile. The description adds transparency by stating 'WORKFLOW: BEFORE: None — standalone', indicating no prerequisites or side effects, and consistently says 'Returns' without implying any mutation. The 'standalone' statement goes beyond the annotations, reinforcing idempotent/read-only 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?

The core description is concise and front-loaded. However, the full description includes lengthy 'INPUT CONTRACT' and 'WORKFLOW' sections that largely duplicate information already present in the input schema. The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section is useful but could be integrated more tightly. The overall text is longer than necessary, with some redundancy between the written description and the schema, reducing conciseness.

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?

The description provides the essential context: what the tool returns (three cycle numbers), how they are derived (from birth date and target date), and how to use optional parameters. It also points to a full external contract via the provided link. It does not describe error handling or response structure, but the presence of an output schema (not shown here) and the external docs reference largely compensate. The tool is sufficiently contextualized for basic use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'INPUT CONTRACT' section adds concrete examples (e.g., '1985-11-12', '2026', '5', '1') and clarifies nuanced behavior such as 'Personal Day is only returned when day is provided. Defaults to null (Personal Day omitted).' This goes beyond the schema descriptions by providing usage examples and edge-case behavior, adding practical meaning for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Returns the Personal Year, Personal Month, and Personal Day numbers for a given birth date and optional target date.' It identifies the specific output (three cycle numbers) and the input (birth date + optional target date). The 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section explicitly distinguishes it from asterwise_get_personal_year and asterwise_get_numerology_profile, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance by contrasting with sibling tools: 'asterwise_get_personal_year — returns Personal Year only, no month or day breakdown' and 'asterwise_get_numerology_profile — core name numbers; personal_year field is null there.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternatives. It also explains the optional parameters (year, month, day) and their defaults, clarifying the intended use cases.

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