Lucky Numbers

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by noting the payload is 'condensed', that inputs are forwarded upstream without local checks, and by linking to the full output/error contract. This is meaningful additional transparency, though not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) that each add distinct value. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler or redundant restating of schema details.

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 description is complete for a tool of this complexity: it explains the standalone workflow, the follow-up path, sibling disambiguation, input forwarding behavior, and provides an external contract link. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered, and the annotations handle the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds only generic context ('name and birth date') and does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetches') and clearly defines the resource: condensed lucky-number guidance for a name and birth date. It enumerates the payload contents (primary/secondary picks, power number, interpretation, date_specific flag), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from likely siblings.

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 WORKFLOW section states that this tool is standalone and points to asterwise_get_numerology_profile as the follow-up when deeper context is needed. The DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names two alternatives and explains exactly why they are not the same, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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