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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — a 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the required-input set — but says nothing about latency, failure modes, or how the strict system's output differs.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the remaining lines are a scannable metadata block (group, endpoint, required, cost, alias). Every line carries information, though the bracketed boilerplate is slightly heavier than prose would be.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety; endpoint, required inputs, cost, and system are all stated. The remaining gap — the difference between 'strict' and non-strict Kabbalistic results — is a nice-to-have rather than a blocker.

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 50%: `fields` and `precision` are documented in the schema, while `date` and `name` are bare. The description's only parameter content is '[Required: name, date]', which merely restates the schema's required array, and it never explains why `name` is needed for a number derived from the day-of-birth digit — a real ambiguity an agent would want resolved.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('calculate the Birthday number') and names the system ('Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)'), which separates it from the Chaldean/Pythagorean/Vedic birthday siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the non-strict `astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_birthday`, so the 'strict' distinction is left implicit.

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 description supplies endpoint, required inputs, cost tier, and a note that this is a 'Cursor-friendly alias' of `astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_birthday`, which is useful routing context. However it never says when to choose this variant over the non-strict Kabbalistic birthday tool or over the canonical name, so usage remains implied.

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