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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the GET endpoint path and a cost disclosure ("see your plan — endpoint not in the public credit manifest"), which warns the agent that billing cannot be pre-computed here.

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 range are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the metadata block (group, endpoint, required param, cost) cleanly separated. Slight redundancy in repeating the 1-9/11/22/33 range already present in the schema description.

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-required-param read tool with an output schema, annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies what structured data does not: the endpoint, the cost caveat, and the interpretive intent. Nothing essential for a correct call is 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%: the schema already defines `n` (including master numbers), `fields` (compact mode with example) and `precision`. The description only restates the range, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: angel numbers aligned to a given life-path number, with the accepted range (1-9, 11, 22, 33) spelled out. It is distinguishable from the other angel-number siblings by the life-path scoping, though it never names those siblings (e.g. astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_number) to disambiguate 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?

"Useful to identify recurring numerical signatures aligned with one's soul path" implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many angel-number siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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