Chaldean Numerology

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral note that inputs are forwarded as-is without local validation, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with separate sections for workflow, input contract, and do-not-confuse guidance. Every sentence adds value—there is no fluff or redundant information. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 annotations, schema, and the provided URL for the full output/error contract, the description offers sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does, what inputs it expects, and how it relates to sibling tools. The output format is partially described (themes and keywords) and response_format parameter covers the rest.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for name, date, and response_format, including an enum and default. The description reinforces that name and date are used as-is, adding a small semantic nuance beyond the schema. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 reduces a name and birth date using the Chaldean system and returns analyses with themes and keywords. It distinguishes itself from similar tools by explicitly naming the Chaldean approach and contrasting with Pythagorean and Lo Shu methods, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance through the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section, naming alternatives and when not to use them (e.g., Pythagorean profile, Lo Shu grid). The AFTER workflow also suggests comparing with the Pythagorean profile when needed, giving clear direction on when to use this tool versus related ones.

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