Pinnacle Cycles (vedic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, which effectively communicate the tool's safety profile. The description adds that it calculates cycles with age boundaries but does not contradict annotations. It provides some context beyond annotations but does not elaborate on behavior like required permissions 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: two sentences plus a group tag and example. The key purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be better aligned with the schema.

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 tool is simple with 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description includes an example with a 'name' field that is not in the input schema, creating a mismatch. It also does not explain the return format or the precise requirement of inputs (name vs. date). This omission reduces completeness for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. The example includes a name field not present in the schema, which could be confusing, but the schema itself is clear.

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 age boundaries, using a verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Pinnacle cycles'). It specifies the Vedic system via the title and group tag, which helps distinguish from other numerology systems. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other pinnacles tools (e.g., chaldean, pythagorean), relying on the system mention.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes an example but does not explain context, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over other vedic numerology tools or pinnacles from other systems.

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