Balance (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operationally useful context in the cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, but says nothing about output content or why a date is needed alongside a name for an initials-based calculation.

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 core action in the first sentence, then structured metadata. Efficient with no wasted prose, though the bracketed metadata lines are boilerplate rather than descriptive value.

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 values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with both parameters at 0% schema coverage and unclear differentiation from sibling balance tools, an agent is left guessing on the date parameter's purpose and system selection.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'name' as the full name (initials of each part) but offers no explanation of what 'date' contributes to a Balance calculation, leaving a required parameter's role entirely undocumented.

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 ("Balance number") plus its derivation ("from initials of each part of the full name") and system ("Pythagorean"). It does not explicitly name the sibling balance tools (chaldean/kabbalistic/vedic_balance), but the system qualifier gives enough to distinguish by tradition.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the sibling list containing at least three other 'balance' tools tied to different systems. An agent gets no signal about when Pythagorean Balance is preferred over the Chaldean/Kabbalistic/Vedic variants.

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