Mayan Compatibility

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

The description says 'computes' and 'returns 0-100 score', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). However, the major inconsistency between the example (two date objects) and the schema (single date property) undermines transparency, as the agent cannot infer the correct input structure. This is a critical omission.

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 the main action and score range front-loaded. The group tag and example are additional but not excessive. The example helps clarify usage despite schema mismatch, though it could be more succinct.

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?

Without an output schema, the description only mentions a '0-100 score', which is insufficient. More critically, the input specification is incomplete: the practical invocation requires two dates, but the schema only provides one, making it impossible for the agent to correctly call the tool without external knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage but only describes properties for a single date. The description adds no value by explaining how to input two people; in fact, the example contradicts the schema, leaving parameters ambiguous. Latitude, longitude, and timezoneOffset are not mentioned or tied to the two-person input.

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 computes Mayan compatibility between two people based on Tzolkin alignment, returning a 0-100 score. The verb 'pair compatibility' and resource are specific, distinguishing it from other compatibility tools in the sibling list. However, the schema only defines a single 'date' field, which contradicts the example with two dates, causing slight confusion.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like human_design_compatibility or synastry. It includes a group tag '[Group: Mayan Calendars]' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving selection unclear.

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