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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real beyond-annotation context: the credit cost tipping, the localized-meaning fields, and the translated:false fallback behavior during localization. It stops short of describing any rate limits or failure modes.

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 core value proposition is front-loaded, cost follows, then output shape, then system. It is dense but every clause contributes; only the bracketed metadata footer is boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained, and the description still covers cost, localization semantics, the system variant, and the aggregation advantage. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 60% and the schema itself documents year (defaults to current year), fields, and precision, so the description repeats the year default rather than adding syntax. It references 'the requested language' as if a language parameter exists, but no such property is in the schema, adding slight ambiguity rather than clarity.

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?

It names the exact resource (the six core numbers: Life Path, Expression, Soul Urge, Personality, Birthday, Personal Year) and the system (Kabbalistic Mathers strict), which distinguishes it from the plain kabbalistic_chart and the single-number siblings. An agent can tell what it returns and which tradition it belongs to without opening the schema.

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 cost framing ('20 credits instead of 60 for six single calls') gives a clear reason to choose this aggregate tool over the six per-number siblings. However, no explicit when-not condition or named alternative is stated, so routing is inferred rather than prescribed.

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