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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the deterministic calculation: digits of the date are summed and reduced to a 1-22 range, which signals a pure read-only computation with no side effects. It does not discuss invalid-date handling or return format, but for a simple calculator this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core concept, algorithm, and result range with no filler. The key differentiator (birth date) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity calculation tool, the description explains the input's purpose, the calculation method, and the output range. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by stating the result is a personal major arcanum. Minor omissions like invalid date behavior are acceptable for this simplicity level.

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% and the date parameter is already documented with format 'ГГГГ-ММ-ДД' (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds the semantic context that the date is a birth date whose digits are summed, which slightly enriches the parameter meaning, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: computing a personal major arcanum from a birth date via digit summation and reduction to 1-22. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tarot_draw or tarot_card, which do not derive from birth dates. A more explicit verb like 'calculates' would strengthen it, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for birth-date-based tarot calculations, which separates it from generic tarot tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'from a birth date' phrasing provides reasonable contextual guidance without direct sibling comparison.

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