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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description still adds genuine context beyond that: it clarifies the payload is a fixed reference table with no computation, and the metadata block discloses the endpoint and 5-credit cost.

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?

The content claim is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the bracketed Group/Endpoint/Cost block is scannable metadata rather than prose. Slightly odd phrasing in "the response says so" is the only friction; nothing is padded.

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 detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Cost, endpoint, and the static nature of the lookup are all disclosed, leaving little an agent needs but would not find; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Both parameters (fields, precision) are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries their semantics (compact-mode field selection and decimal rounding). The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline.

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 the specific resource (the Tree of Life / ten sephirot) and enumerates exactly what the reference table contains: Hebrew, meaning, pillar, triad, and the Golden Dawn planetary attribution, grouped by pillar. This clearly separates it from the other Kabbalah siblings (gematria, shem_names), though it doesn't call those out by name.

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?

"Nothing here is computed" implies the tool is for static lookup rather than derived calculation, which is a usable hint about when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the Kabbalah sibling tools, so the guidance stays implicit.

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