Pinnacle Cycles (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, but says nothing about the number/format of returned cycles beyond the mention of four age boundaries.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and result, then the system qualifier; the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. Only the "life chapters of opportunity" gloss borders on filler.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers system variant, cost, endpoint, and required inputs. The missing piece is how "strict/Mathers" changes results versus the standard Kabbalistic pinnacles sibling.

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 schema for name/date carries only pattern and length constraints. The description's "[Required: name, date]" simply restates the schema's required array and adds no meaning about what name (birth name? spelling variant?) or date (birth date?) should be.

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 ("Calculate four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries") plus a plain-language gloss ("life chapters of opportunity"). The explicit system qualifier "Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)" separates it from the many sibling pinnacle tools (pythagorean, vedic, chaldean, and non-strict kabbalistic).

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 by the system label; nothing says when to pick the strict Kabbalistic variant over astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_pinnacles or another tradition's pinnacles tool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are offered.

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