Full Mayan Date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the list of returned components and an example, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites or side effects.

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 two sentences, a group tag, and an example. It is front-loaded but could include a bit more structure for completeness.

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 is a combined call returning multiple components, the description lists what is returned. Without an output schema, this is adequate. However, it could clarify when optional parameters (latitude, etc.) are needed.

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%, meaning all parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only provides an example with the 'date' parameter and does not add meaning for latitude, longitude, or timezoneOffset beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns 'all four classical components in one call: Long Count + Tzolkin + Haab + Calendar Round + Lord of the Night.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that return individual components.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the sibling tool names imply alternatives for individual components, no direct exclusions or contexts are given.

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