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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the names are DERIVED via boustrophedon reading rather than copied from a table, and rows where a named published list differs are flagged — disclosing that outputs may intentionally diverge from published sources. The longitude mode switch is also disclosed. It does not cover response shape or pagination behavior, but no output schema exists and the core behavioral traits are well surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the return payload is front-loaded first, the derivation/discrepancy-flag behavior second, and the invocation mode plus use cases third. There is no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a read-only tool with 5 documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract (six per-row fields), the provenance caveat, and the alternative single-name mode. Minor gaps exist — the exact shape of the discrepancy flag and the response envelope are unspecified — but nothing an agent needs to call the tool or interpret its results is fundamentally missing.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all five parameters (lang, limit, offset, compact, longitude). The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning: it reinforces longitude's mode-switching behavior and explains the five-degree arc concept, but adds nothing about lang, limit, offset, or compact beyond what the schema states.

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 names a precise verb ('Return') and resource (the seventy two names) with an exhaustive field list: three letters, divine name suffix, five-degree ecliptic arc, sign, and angelic choir. This field-level specificity clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_kabbalah_names_number, get_kabbalah_letters, and get_kabbalah_ciphers without needing to open their 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?

The description gives concrete use cases ('birth angel features, Shem HaMephorash reference pages') and an explicit invocation mode ('Pass a longitude to get the single name governing that degree'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use it, so exclusions are absent, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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