Long Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with '[Cost: 10 credits (Tier 1)]' and the endpoint, letting an agent weigh budget before calling. It does not say whether the input date is interpreted as Gregorian or UTC, which matters for a calendar-conversion tool.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a short metadata block; the notation definition is front-loaded and every clause carries information. The opening sentence is slightly cryptic because it leads with format description rather than stating the conversion operation.

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 a one-parameter schema, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, very little is required. The description supplies group, endpoint, required field, and cost. The remaining gap is input-calendar ambiguity and lack of routing against the many other Mayan siblings.

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%, but the single parameter's regex pattern '^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}$' already conveys the ISO format. The description adds nothing beyond '[Required: date]' — notably it never clarifies which calendar system the input date belongs to, the one ambiguity an agent would have here.

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 defines the output resource precisely (baktun.katun.tun.uinal.kin, days since the 4 Ahau 8 Cumku epoch), which distinguishes it from the Tzolkin, Haab, and Calendar Round siblings. However, it never states the action verb — that a Gregorian date is converted to this notation — leaving the agent to infer the operation from the name and title.

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-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., astroway_mayan_full for a complete Mayan calendar breakdown). The bracketed metadata only states '[Required: date]', which is mechanical, not advisory.

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