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 metadata beyond annotations: cost (10 credits, Tier 1), endpoint, and required inputs. It still says nothing about what the calculation returns or what 'personal evolution' output looks like, and an output schema exists to carry that, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost). No filler sentences. Slightly dense but every element carries routing or cost information.

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 simple computation tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the essentials (purpose, required inputs, cost) are present. The omission is disambiguation from the many parallel Personal Year implementations, which matters far more here than return-value detail that the output schema already supplies.

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 60%: `year`, `fields`, and `precision` are documented in-schema, while `date` and `name` carry only pattern/length constraints. The description merely repeats the required list ('Required: name, date') and adds the phrase 'for a given calendar year', adding no meaning beyond structured fields. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate the Personal Year number') and pins the system ('Kabbalistic (phonetic)'), which is essential given ~70 sibling numerology tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as kabbalistic_strict_personal_year or numk_personal_year, so an agent cannot tell those apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. It never tells the agent how this differs from the chaldean, pythagorean, vedic, strict, numk, numks, or nump Personal Year variants, which is the single most important routing decision for this tool family. The system label is implied context, not guidance.

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