Personal Year (vedic)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it calculates based on a calendar year and mentions a 9-year cycle, but this does not go beyond what annotations imply. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data usage, side effects) are disclosed.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes an example with extraneous fields (name and year) not present in the schema, which is a structural flaw. The group label is useful but could be integrated more cleanly. The example adds clutter without clarity.

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 simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description provides adequate high-level context. However, the example inconsistency undermines completeness. The tool's return value or interpretation of the Personal Year number is not described, but for a calculation tool, this is acceptable with good schema coverage.

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 four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). However, the tool description includes an example request body with 'name' and 'year' fields that are not in the schema. This inconsistency can mislead the agent about required parameters. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it introduces confusion.

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 the Personal Year number for a given calendar year — 9-year cycle of personal evolution.' It specifies the verb (calculate), the resource (Personal Year number), and the context (9-year cycle). The tool name and title include 'Vedic', and the description mentions 'Numerology — Vedic system', which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like numer_ chaldean_personal_year.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the 'Vedic system' label, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose Vedic over Chaldean, Kabbalistic, or Pythagorean personal year tools. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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