Pinnacle Cycles (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully by disclosing the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the endpoint, and the fact that the response contains exactly four cycles with age boundaries — cost and cardinality are genuine behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 lines, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the system qualifier and then a dense metadata block. No sentence is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the mutation/safety dimension, so the essentials are covered. The remaining gap is the phonetic-name input convention for a spelling-sensitive Kabbalistic calculation, which an agent would have to guess.

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%, so the description carries the full burden — but it only restates '[Required: name, date]', which the schema's required array already says. It never explains that 'name' should be the full birth name as phonetically pronounced (critical for a Kabbalistic/phonetic system, where spelling and middle names change the result), nor does it restate the date format constraints.

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 (calculate) and resource (four Pinnacle cycles with age boundaries), and adds a plain-language gloss ('life chapters of opportunity') so an agent knows the output shape. The 'Kabbalistic (phonetic)' qualifier separates it from the Pythagorean, Vedic and Chaldean pinnacle siblings, though it never names or contrasts with astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_pinnacles, the closest competing variant.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'life chapters of opportunity' hints at life-stage timing questions, and the metadata block lists required inputs and cost. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statements, and no routing advice among the many sibling pinnacle/challenge tools across numerology systems.

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