Mayan Compatibility

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit by adding what they cannot: the pricing (10 credits, Tier 1), the endpoint, and the scoring scale. It still omits whether the result is deterministic across identical dates or what happens with two identical birth dates.

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 lines, method and output range front-loaded, then structured metadata tags. Efficient, though the tag block is mostly protocol boilerplate rather than tool-specific meaning.

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 not explaining the return payload is fine, and the 0-100 scale is noted. But for a two-nested-object input at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the input shape and date semantics unexplained — the largest gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and the parameters are nested objects, yet the description only repeats 'Required: person1, person2' — already in the schema's required array. It never says each parameter is an object containing a YYYY-MM-DD birth date, which is the single most important thing an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 — pair compatibility computed from Tzolkin name/tone alignment plus elemental/directional affinity — and declares the 0-100 output. The 'Mayan' framing distinguishes it from the many Vedic/Chinese/Western compatibility siblings, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 beyond the boilerplate '[Group: Mayan Calendars]' tag and an 'Endpoint' line. Nothing tells the agent how to choose between this and astroway_horoscope_compatibility, astroway_relational_match_score, or the vedic compatibility family.

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