Personal Angel Number

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a linked 'Full output and error contract' and mentions a default behavior for date ('Defaults to today when omitted'), providing additional transparency beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Structured with clear headings (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and a concise link to full docs. Each section is purposeful, though it repeats some schema-level parameter descriptions and includes a long sibling list in context; the description itself is efficient without fluff.

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?

Provides the mapping logic, a recommended prerequisite, explicit disambiguation from nearest siblings, and a link to the full output/error contract. Since an output schema exists (per context), return values need not be explained. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide to call it and to anticipate its behavior.

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 100% (per context signals), so baseline is 3. The tool description repeats the date and name parameters with a concrete example for date, but does not add substantially new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The response_format parameter is not mentioned in the main description, though it is covered in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Computes') and resource ('personal angel number') with a clear method (Pythagorean Life Path). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings in the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming asterwise_get_angel_number_today and asterwise_get_numerology_profile, so an agent can select it correctly without opening their schemas.

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?

Provides a recommended prerequisite workflow ('BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_numerology_profile — confirm Life Path before calling') and explicit alternatives to avoid confusion, covering when to use and when not to use this tool. This fully addresses the 'when vs alternatives' guidance.

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