Pinnacle Cycles (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context not in the annotations: the endpoint and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which matters for a metered API. It says nothing about output shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 lead sentence is compact and front-loaded, stating the output (four cycles plus age boundaries) and the interpretive framing. The bracketed metadata lines are terse and individually informative, though 'Required' duplicates the schema's required array.

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?

Inputs are simple (two required scalars), an output schema documents the return values, and cost is disclosed, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The main residual gap is semantic: it never clarifies that name/date are birth data, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong.

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 burden of explaining the two parameters — but it only lists their names as required. It does not clarify that 'name' is the birth/legal name used for letter-value reduction or that 'date' is the birth date in YYYY-MM-DD, which are non-obvious for numerology calculations.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Calculate four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries') and labels the system ('Pythagorean'), which implicitly separates it from the Chaldean, Kabbalistic, and Vedic pinnacle siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the three other pinnacle variants, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The 'Required: name, date' line is a restatement of the schema's required array, not usage guidance.

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