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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds genuine additional context beyond that: the data is static and pre-computed, and the response itself signals this, which matters for an agent deciding whether results are deterministic.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the resource and its contents, followed by bracketed group/cost metadata. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete enough for a static reference tool, though a hint tying it to related kabbalah lookups would close the last gap.

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 `fields` and `precision` compact-mode parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or semantics for them, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete resource (the Tree of Life sephirot table) and enumerates its columns (Hebrew, meaning, pillar, triad, Golden Dawn planetary attribution), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly a distinct static reference versus siblings like gematria or shem_names, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 line 'Nothing here is computed' implies this is a pure static lookup to be used when the sephirot reference is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus kabbalah_gematria or kabbalah_shem_names. Usage is only implied.

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