Expression Number

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful beyond the annotations: it discloses the Goodwin/Balliett per-part method, explains why master numbers are preserved, and clarifies that name parts are reduced separately before summing. It also points to the output/error contract URL, adding behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema convey.

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?

Organized with clear labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) and front-loads the core calculation method in the first sentence. Every section earns its place and the length is appropriate for a tool that needs to distinguish itself among many sibling numerology tools.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the calculation method, input requirements, workflow position, sibling distinctions, and error/out contract via a link. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the name parameter: full legal name as used at birth, space-separated parts, any case allowed, and a minimum one alphabaetic character constraint. It does not diacuss response_format, but the schema already fully documents that enum and default.

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 the specific operation: calculates the Expression/Destiny number from a full name using Pythagorean letter values, with concrete method details (per-part reduction, master number preservation). It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling numerology tools, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool uniquely does.

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 an explicit WORKFLOW section stating it is standalone and names the natural after-step (soul_urge_number). Also has a dedicated DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section listing four sibling tools and the exact condition that makes them alternatives, which is ideal guidance for tool selection.

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