Pinnacle Cycles (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it calculates cycles with age boundaries, but does not elaborate on output format, possible side effects (none expected), or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, a group label, and an example request body. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. The example adds value despite the parameter discrepancy.

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?

The description omits key contextual details: there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the format or meaning of the results (e.g., what age boundaries look like, how to interpret pinnacle cycles). The example introduces an undocumented parameter, adding confusion. Given the complexity of calculating four cycles, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description includes an example request body with an extra 'name' field not present in the schema. This contradicts the schema and may mislead users into thinking 'name' is required. The example also does not clarify that only 'date' is required, and no additional parameter semantics are added.

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 the tool calculates 'four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries — life chapters of opportunity.' It uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Pinnacle cycles'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like life_path or expression by specifying the Kabbalistic (Mathers strict) 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?

While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other numerology pinnacles tools, other systems). It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The group label and system name help but do not constitute usage guidelines.

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