Wellness Cycle Milestones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: the exact endpoint, that birthDate is mandatory, and a concrete cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) — billing impact is a behavior an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of noting latency or what 'nearby' means operationally.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata block is scannable rather than prose padding. It is arguably over-terse for a two-parameter tool, but nothing is redundant.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero schema coverage the description leaves the targetDate parameter unexplained, which is the main gap an agent would hit when composing a call.

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 full burden. It only labels birthDate as required — something the schema's required array already states — and says nothing about the YYYY-MM-DD format or, more importantly, what targetDate does (presumably the reference date for the 'nearby' milestones). The second parameter is left entirely opaque.

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 names a specific resource (age-based wellness milestones) and concretizes it with examples — Saturn return, Uranus opposition, hormonal shifts — plus the response shape ('nearby + full list'). It is clearly distinct from wellness siblings like biorhythm or sleep_cycles, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from astroway_family_saturn_return_cycles or the prognostics return tools, which cover overlapping ground.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The bracketed tags give operational facts (endpoint, required param, 10-credit cost) but nothing tells the agent under what circumstances to choose this over the Saturn-return or planetary-return tools. Usage must be inferred from the word 'wellness'.

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