Time-Lord Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the credit cost (10, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, which are useful operational facts, but says nothing about what the merged result contains or how the three stacks are aligned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation, followed by compact bracketed metadata for group, endpoint and cost. No filler, though the body is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 and the input schema is richly annotated, so return values need not be explained. What is missing is the relationship to the sibling technique tools and the role of targetAge in producing the stack — an agent can call it but may pick the wrong tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested body schema already documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone handling and houseSystem letters in detail. The description adds nothing about the one semantically interesting addition, targetAge, or how it drives the decennial layer, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely (a combined time-lord stack) and enumerates the three techniques it merges: profection, zodiacal releasing and decennials, scoped 'for a date'. That is clear to a domain-aware agent, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling single-technique tools (brennan_profections_detail, brennan_zodiacal_releasing_fortune/spirit, hand_decennials).

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 guidance on when to call the combined stack rather than the individual profection/ZR/decennial tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a convenience aggregate.

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