numerology-api

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as output format, symmetry of inputs, or any side effects. It only states inputs, not what the tool returns.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It directly communicates the core purpose and valid inputs.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., compatibility score, rating). It omits this entirely, making it incomplete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that both parameters are Life Path numbers with valid ranges, which goes beyond the bare integer schema. However, it could have explicitly stated that 'a' and 'b' denote each person's number.

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 clearly states the tool computes numerology compatibility between two Life Path numbers, specifies the valid range (1–9 or master numbers), and distinguishes it from siblings like life_path (single number) and numerology_profile (profile).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like calculating Life Path numbers first.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'reduction trail and meaning' as output but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, performance, or rate limits). The description is purely functional.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, immediately states purpose and key output features ('reduction trail and meaning'). No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and simple inputs, the description covers the primary function and output components. However, it is vague on the exact return structure (e.g., format of 'trail' and 'meaning'), which could be clarified.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context by indicating 'year, month, day' are for a birth date, which clarifies their role. However, it does not specify valid ranges or format details (e.g., 4-digit year).

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 clearly states it computes the 'Life Path number' (specific resource) 'reduced from a birth date' (specific verb and data source). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on core numerology number, unlike 'compatibility' or 'name_numbers'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (compatibility, name_numbers, numerology_profile). The description implies its purpose but does not set context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the method (Pythagorean) and outputs (meanings), but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, performance characteristics, or input constraints (e.g., handling of spaces, non-alphabetic characters). Little behavioral context beyond the core function.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with essential information (numbers, method, meanings). It is concise with no fluff. However, for a simple tool, being more structured with separate details could improve scannability.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on input format, output structure, and error handling. It is mostly complete for a simple calculator but leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 0% for the 'name' parameter. The description adds that the input is a 'name' for Pythagorean calculation, which provides minimal extra meaning. It does not specify format, examples, or constraints, so it adds some but not substantial value.

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 clearly states the tool computes three specific numerology numbers (Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, Personality) from a name using the Pythagorean method, and that it includes meanings. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'life_path' or 'compatibility'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only implies usage when a name is provided.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses determinism ('No AI') and reduction trail, but does not address side effects (none expected), rate limits, or behavior when optional name is omitted. Minor inconsistency: description implies name is needed, but schema marks name optional.

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 description is a single concise paragraph front-loaded with purpose, listing key components and ending with 'No AI.' No wasted words, though a bullet list could improve scanability.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the high-level function and components but lacks output format, parameter details, and handling of missing name. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%. The description maps name and birth date to parameters (name, year, month, day) and mentions targetYear for Personal Year, but provides no details on format, ranges, or defaults. Incomplete for a no-schema-coverage tool.

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 clearly states it generates a full Pythagorean numerology profile from a name and birth date, listing specific numbers (Life Path, Expression/Destiny, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like life_path (single number) and name_numbers (name-only) by being comprehensive.

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 implies use for a complete profile, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (life_path, name_numbers, compatibility). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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