Full Mayan Date

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 adds genuinely useful operational context not present in structured fields: the endpoint, the required input, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which lets an agent reason about budget.

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 sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, and the bracketed metadata lines are compact. The 'four' vs five-components wording is a small self-inconsistency but does not bloat the text.

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, return values need not be described, and annotations plus the cost/endpoint metadata cover the operational picture for a one-parameter tool. The remaining gap is the semantic meaning and accepted era/format of the date argument.

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%: the single 'date' parameter has a regex pattern but no prose meaning. The description supplies only '[Required: date]' and never states whether this is a Gregorian date to convert, a birth date, or what timezone/era applies, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific components returned (Long Count, Tzolkin, Haab, Calendar Round, Lord of the Night) and states it is a combined call, which distinguishes it from the individual mayan_long_count / mayan_tzolkin / mayan_haab siblings. The only flaw is the internal inconsistency of saying 'all four' while listing five components.

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?

'All four classical components in one call' implicitly tells the agent to pick this over the single-component siblings when a full profile is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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