Soul Urge Number

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful algorithmic transparency by specifying that Y is always a consonant and that master numbers 11, 22, 33 are preserved, which helps the agent anticipate results. It does not detail failure modes, but the output schema and linked docs likely cover those.

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 separate sections for purpose, workflow, input contract, and disambiguation. It is concise overall, but there is minor redundancy: the Y-as-consonant rule appears in both the main description and the input contract. Still, the structure aids readability and no unnecessary fluff is present.

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 includes all necessary context for correct invocation: the input format, the output format options, a link to the full output/error contract, and clear differentiation from similar tools. Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text, providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the 'name' parameter as the full legal name at birth and emphasizing the vowel rule, which is not fully captured in the schema description. This pushes the score above baseline.

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 precisely states the tool calculates the Soul Urge number from vowels in the full name, naming the specific resource and verb. It further distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with expression (all letters) and personality (consonants) numbers, making it clear which tool to select.

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 usage guidance by naming the tools not to confuse with (expression and personality numbers) and clarifies the vowel-only vs. all-letters vs. consonants distinction. It also indicates a follow-up tool (personality number) to complete the name trinity, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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