calculate_time_lords

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: precondition failures yield needs_clarification, server checks run before results are returned, output is timing tables and lords rather than event predictions, and detail_level/include truncation behavior is disclosed. However, it does not describe pagination, size limits, or error surface beyond the one clarification path, and the verification paragraph is more workflow instruction than behavior of this tool.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct content about routing, prerequisites, output type, and verification. It is dense and runs long, with the verification/detail_level material packed into a single block that could be split or trimmed, but nothing is purely redundant.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so ('timing tables and lords, not event predictions'), covers the prerequisite/clarification path, the verification loop, and the detail_level/include output shaping. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know what it will and will not get back.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining the interaction between detail_level and include ('Omit both for the original full result') and that summary mode preserves scalar membership lists while marking truncation. It also clarifies that the tradition alias is not a claim of historical equivalence and that profection house_system is chosen independently, which the schema does not say.

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?

States a specific verb and two named resources (Firdaria and annual profections) plus the scope of each output (major periods to age-100, sub-periods in the active major, profection years -1/+3 clipped to the report). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, calculate_zodiacal_releasing, so an agent can select without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it ('releasing from Fortune/Spirit'), lists prerequisites (exact local birth date/time, confirmed location_id, explicit house_system) and the failure mode (needs_clarification), and prescribes a follow-up step (call verify_calculation_claims with unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting). When-to-use, when-not, and downstream sequencing are all explicit.

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