Lord of the Night

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context (cost of 10 credits, Tier 1, POST endpoint, required date), but says nothing about output content or timezone/date interpretation.

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 semantic sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required, cost) is compact and scannable. No filler; only slight redundancy in restating the name.

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 return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the cost/endpoint metadata helps. However, the ambiguity over what the date parameter represents for a 'per night' cycle leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'date' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It only restates '[Required: date]' and adds no meaning about whether the date is local/UTC, whether it refers to the night of that date, or format expectations beyond the regex.

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 resource: the Mayan Lord of the Night, a 9-day cycle of underworld deities G1-G9 governing each night's spiritual influence. That is specific enough to tell it apart conceptually from siblings like mayan_tzolkin or mayan_long_count, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance is given. With six other mayan_* siblings (calendar_round, dreamspell, full, tzolkin, long_count, compatibility), the agent has no stated condition for choosing this tool over those; only the label 'Lord of the Night' implies a distinct purpose.

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