Biorhythm Best Days

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the 366-day range cap, the default removal of critical days, that a disclaimer is attached to every answer, and the 10-credit cost. These are real behavioral traits not present in the structured fields; only ranking/tie-breaking and error behavior are unstated.

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 outcome, then the scoring rule, then the disclaimer, then compact metadata blocks. Dense but every sentence carries information; no 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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need not be explained, and cost/endpoint/disclaimer are present. However, with three of five parameters undocumented and no stated behavior for a missing range, the definition is not fully sufficient for confident invocation.

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 coverage is only 40%: count and excludeCritical are documented in-schema, while birthDate, rangeStart and rangeEnd are not. The description adds the 366-day window and restates the critical-day default, but never explains the range boundary parameters or what happens when the range is omitted, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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-resource outcome: 'highest-scoring days in a range', plus the scoring formula and the default exclusion of critical days. It is clearly a ranked-list tool, distinguishable from the per-day sibling astroway_wellness_biorhythm, though it never names that sibling as the alternative.

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?

Gives context ('a historical model, not a prediction and not health advice') that frames when the output is appropriate, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no named alternative such as the full biorhythm endpoint for day-by-day values. Usage is only implied.

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