Time-Lord Stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the group label 'Hellenistic — Brennan tradition' for context but does not elaborate on the output format, computational impact, or any quirks of combining the three techniques. With annotations covering core safety, a score of 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?

The description is concise with one sentence, a group label, and an example. However, the example omits the required 'targetAge' parameter, reducing clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but the inconsistency with the schema harms its effectiveness. Earns a 4 for brevity but loses a point for the misleading example.

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?

Given the tool's complex input schema (multiple required fields including targetAge) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain what the 'combined stack' output looks like, how the three techniques interact, or what the targetAge represents. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (date, time, targetAge, etc.). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the example is incomplete and adds confusion rather than clarity. Therefore, no extra value is contributed.

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 clearly states it is a 'Combined stack of profection + ZR + decennials for a date,' specifying the verb 'stack' and the three resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual techniques (e.g., hellenistic_brennan_profections_detail, hellenistic_brennan_zodiacal_releasing_fortune, hellenistic_hand_decennials). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example request body is incomplete (missing the required 'targetAge') and may mislead an AI agent about required parameters. No context for when not to use or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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