Pinnacle Cycles (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds that it calculates 'four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries', which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about the output nature.

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 two sentences plus a group tag and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, concise, and every element (purpose, group, example) adds value.

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 no output schema, the description only states 'four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries' but does not specify the return format (e.g., numbers, age ranges). The misleading example reduces completeness. However, the tool is simple and annotations cover safety.

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%, but the description adds no meaning to latitude, longitude, or timezoneOffset. Moreover, the example includes 'name' which is not in the schema, potentially misleading the agent about required parameters.

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 'Calculate four Pinnacle cycles with their age boundaries' and specifies 'Numerology — Pythagorean system', which distinguishes it from sibling pinnacles tools (Chaldean, Kabbalistic, Vedic). The verb and resource are specific and 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 implies use for Pythagorean pinnacles but does not explicitly guide the agent when to choose this over other numerology pinnacles tools (e.g., chaldean, kabbalistic). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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