Pinnacle Cycles (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds an example request body showing required fields and hints at input format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, data validity conditions, or return value structure. Since annotations handle most transparency needs, the description's contribution is adequate but minimal.

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 short (two sentences plus example) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of an errant 'name' field in the example introduces noise. The group label is useful for categorization, but overall the structure is adequate for a simple tool, though imperfect.

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 complexity (calculating four cycles with age boundaries) and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the result contains (e.g., cycle numbers, age ranges) and how the calculation works. It does not mention any output details, leaving the agent to guess. The input schema includes optional location parameters not explained in the description, further reducing completeness.

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% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. However, the description's example includes a field 'name' that is not in the schema, causing confusion. The description does not explain the optional parameters (latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset) or their purpose. This undermines clarity and adds potential misinterpretation, warranting a lower score.

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 calculates four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries, specifying the Kabbalistic (phonetic) system. The verb 'Calculate' and resource 'Pinnacle cycles' are precise, and the mention of 'life chapters of opportunity' adds context. It differentiates from sibling tools like chaldean or strict variants by naming the system.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., numerology_kabbalistic_strict_pinnacles or other systems). It lacks prerequisites, when-to-use, or when-not-to-use hints. The only context is the system name, which implies usage for Kabbalistic numerology, but no explicit guidance.

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