calculate_timeline_synthesis

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond that: no predictive interpretations, server-side checks run before results, resonances only group points matching across ≥2 techniques within 30 days, summary truncation is marked, and verification references always identify the complete calculation. It does not describe rate limits or failure modes beyond invalid_input.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and technique list, then workflow, then output-shaping options — a sensible ordering. It is long and repeats the 'references identify the complete calculation' idea twice, but nearly every sentence carries information.

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 11 parameters, zero required params, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should explain the date/time input contract. It instead spends words on verification workflow and detail_level while leaving the core temporal inputs undefined, so the definition is only partially complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 18% across 11 params, so the description carries more burden than usual. It does clarify target_year, the 1–3 year birthplace span (span_years), include's field-selection behavior, and detail_level's two modes, but the seven datetime/location parameters (day, month, hour, minute, fold, location_id) get no explanation of format, timezone, or null semantics.

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 resource (multi-technique timeline) and enumerates exactly which techniques are bundled (Firdaria, Zodiacal Releasing L1/L2, progressed Moon, Jupiter–Pluto conjunctions) plus the target_year/birthplace-year scope. An agent can tell this is a composite time-lord/transit timeline rather than a single-technique tool, though it never names which sibling to prefer for a single technique.

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?

Gives explicit downstream workflow: call verify_calculation_claims with the unchanged calculation_reference before interpreting, correct contradicted facts, reverify. Also tells when to use detail_level=summary vs. omitting both selectors for the full result. It lacks any when-to-use-this-instead-of-a-sibling-calculation guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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