numerology-api

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., numbers outside the stated range), or any rate limits or prerequisites. The behavioral profile is under-specified.

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 that efficiently conveys the core function and parameter constraints. No extraneous words, and critical information (number range) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), so the description covers the bare essentials: purpose and parameter constraints. However, it fails to describe the return format or behavior on error, which leaves gaps for an agent expecting a complete specification.

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 provides integer parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying they are Life Path numbers and restricting to 1–9 or master numbers 11/22/33. However, it doesn't clarify required positivity or error handling for invalid inputs, so only partial compensation.

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 numerology compatibility between two Life Path numbers, specifying the valid range (1–9 or master 11/22/33). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like life_path (computes a single number) and numerology_profile (provides full profile). However, it does not explicitly state what the output is (e.g., score, rating, text), which slightly dims clarity.

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. For example, it does not mention that life_path should be used first to calculate a user's life path number before using compatibility, nor does it compare with name_numbers. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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 the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reduction trail and meaning' hinting at return structure, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or other behavioral traits. For a computational tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 covering core purpose efficiently. Front-loaded with key information. Slightly more detail could be added without breaking conciseness.

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?

No output schema and description lacks detail on reduction trail, meaning output, or error handling. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no documentation, more completeness is needed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter-level details. No information on expected format, constraints, or examples for day, month, 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 the tool computes the Life Path number from a birth date, including reduction trail and meaning. It distinguishes it from siblings like compatibility and name_numbers by focusing on the core life path calculation, though it could explicitly state it's a calculation.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (compatibility, name_numbers, numerology_profile). The description does not provide context for selection.

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 the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions computation and meanings but fails to disclose that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation or any required permissions. The burden is on the description, and it is insufficient.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No filler words. However, it could be slightly more structured to list the outputs for clarity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but omits output format details (e.g., whether meanings are separate fields). It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 sole parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only says 'from a name' without specifying format (e.g., full name, first name) or constraints. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 Expression/Destiny, Soul Urge, and Personality numbers from a name using the Pythagorean method with meanings. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compatibility' and 'life_path'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or provide context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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?

The description specifies 'deterministic' and 'No AI,' but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or what happens if required parameters like name are missing (name is not required in schema but needed for some outputs). No annotations are provided.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs efficiently. It avoids superfluous 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?

Despite listing output components, the description lacks details on return format, parameter constraints (e.g., required name for full profile), and context for targetYear. No output schema exists to compensate, leaving gaps 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of each parameter, such as name format or targetYear's role in Personal Year calculation.

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 provides a 'Full deterministic Pythagorean numerology profile' from name and birth date, listing specific outputs like Life Path, Expression/Destiny, and Personal Year. It distinguishes from siblings by implying a comprehensive profile vs single-number tools like life_path 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?

The description implies use for full profile computation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like compatibility, life_path, or name_numbers. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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