Firdaria

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds cost tier (20 credits, Tier 2) and the POST endpoint, which is useful operational context, but nothing about how the periods are bounded or what the response contains. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence defining the technique, followed by compact group/endpoint/cost metadata. Nothing is redundant, though the metadata block is boilerplate rather than explanatory content.

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 need not be described, and the annotations plus rich input schema cover inputs and safety. What remains is minor: no hint about sect determination or how many years default to, but for a specialized calculation endpoint the definition is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 100% and the nested body description extensively documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone handling and houseSystem letters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own; even maxYears is only obliquely reflected in the body's "number of years of firdaria periods to return", with no default or cap explained in prose. Baseline 3.

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 Firdaria planetary periods") and characterizes the technique as the traditional Persian time-lord system based on sect and planet order, which distinguishes it from the many other prognostics siblings such as profections or primary directions. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, so it stops short of a 5.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for Firdaria time-lord analysis on a natal chart, but there is no statement of when to choose it over other time-lord tools (profections, zodiacal releasing, decennials) or what inputs are prerequisites beyond the schema itself.

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