Name Correction

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds useful context like 'upstream validates' and 'echoes recommendation stub fields,' which aligns with a non-modifying operation. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations, and the description does not introduce any misleading side-effect claims. However, it does not explicitly describe potential errors or rate limits, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 compact and well-organized, using clear section headers (WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH) to separate purpose, prerequisites, and disambiguation. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and avoids redundant elaboration. The inclusion of a link to the full output/error contract keeps the description concise while providing access to deeper details. It is slightly verbose with multiple sections, but each contributes to usability.

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 an agent to understand the tool's role within the larger context of sibling tools. It provides workflow context (recommended predecessor), clarifies boundaries versus similar tools, and points to a full output/error contract. Since an output schema is indicated (has output schema: true), the description does not need to enumerate return fields; however, the phrase 'echoes recommendation stub fields' is somewhat ambiguous and could benefit from a brief explanation, but the link covers details.

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% for all three parameters (name, date, response_format), each with detailed descriptions. The description merely restates the schema constraints ('name and date strings only; upstream validates') without adding additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema. For example, the schema already explains that name letters are converted to numerology values and that date defaults to today. Since coverage is high and the description does not introduce new semantics, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scores the current spelling of a personal name against the birth-date Life Path, suggests alternate spellings with harmony metrics, and echoes recommendation stub fields.' This provides a specific verb (scores, suggests, echoes), a specific resource (personal name, birth-date Life Path), and distinguishes it from related tools via the 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH' section (e.g., business_name_analysis for entities, chaldean_numerology for Chaldean compounds).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by naming sibling tools and contrasting them: 'DO NOT CONFUSE WITH: asterwise_get_business_name_analysis — entity Expression scan, not personal spelling alternatives; asterwise_get_chaldean_numerology — Chaldean compounds, not harmony-scored spelling list.' It also specifies a recommended preceding workflow: 'BEFORE: RECOMMENDED — asterwise_get_numerology_profile — baseline numbers before renaming advice.' This tells an agent exactly when to use this tool and when to choose alternatives.

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