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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the group, the calculation formula, and the age activation window.

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 text is tightly front-loaded: first the calculation formula, then the system, then compact metadata tags for group and cost. Every sentence and tag earns its place with no filler.

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 covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to add what the agent must know to call it. It supplies formula, system, and cost, but omits any guidance on choosing the strict variant over the many sibling maturity tools or on required parameters.

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?

The schema describes only the optional 'fields' and 'precision' parameters; the required 'name' and 'date' have no descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning for any parameter, so half the input remains unexplained outside of basic type and pattern constraints.

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 states a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (Maturity number) and identifies the exact system (Kabbalistic Mathers strict). It does not explicitly differentiate from the non-strict Kabbalistic sibling or other maturity tools, leaving that to name and title.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other numerology systems or maturity calculations. The phrase 'activates around age 35' describes the number itself, not when the tool should be invoked.

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