Pinnacle Cycles (vedic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in any structured field: the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint/method. It does not discuss rate limits or result shape, but the output schema exists so return values need not be explained.

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?

One sentence of substance followed by a compact bracketed metadata block; the core purpose is front-loaded. The footer lines are boilerplate but terse and skimmable rather than wasteful.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent, two-parameter calculation with an output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The gap is parameter meaning: nothing tells the agent what a valid 'name' or the significance of 'date' is, which matters because each parameter is a required input with no schema documentation.

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 compensate for the two required parameters. Instead it only restates their names ('[Required: name, date]') without clarifying that 'name' should be the full birth name or that the date drives the age-boundary math, which is the crux of a pinnacle calculation.

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 gloss ('life chapters of opportunity'). The '[Group: Numerology: Vedic]' tag differentiates it from the Pythagorean, Chaldean, and Kabbalistic pinnacles siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 tradition label; the description never says when to pick Vedic pinnacles over the other pinnacle systems, nor any prerequisite beyond the required name/date. An agent can infer the routing from the group tag but must do the work itself.

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