Numerology Compatibility

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the four strings are passed through without local guards, and a sanity-check workflow is advised, plus a link to the full output/error contract. It stops short of detailing error cases but the external contract covers that.

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 tightly organized into first-sentence summary, WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, DO NOT CONFUSE WITH, and a docs link. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or repetition 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?

With output schema present, annotations covering safety, and a description that includes workflow prerequisites, input caveats, sibling distinctions, and an external contract link, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents formats for the four name/date parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that all four strings pass through without local guards and that the Life Paths are derived from names and birth dates. It also signals the response_format enum through the JSON/markdown phrasing in the schema without needing duplication.

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 first sentence states the specific action, 'Compares two people on Pythagorean Life Path numbers' and lists the returned artifacts: score, tier, narrative, strengths, challenges, advice. It clearly difers from siblings by naming what it is not. This exceeds basic clarity.

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 explicitly recommends calling asterwise_get_numerology_profile per person before comparing, and the DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section names the two nearest alernatives and their distinguishing conditions. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance beyond mere inference.

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