Angel Numbers: Catalogue

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false already declared, the safety profile is covered by structured data and the description is not obliged to repeat it. It does add real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost (5 credits, Tier ½) and the depth of returned content (short and full meanings plus themes). It omits any statement about result size or whether the whole catalogue is returned in one payload, which matters for a comprehensive listing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the tool and its contents with zero filler. The bracketed group/endpoint/cost lines are metadata rather than prose, and the cost line earns its place by informing spend decisions.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only catalogue with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is in it, how deep the meanings go, and what it costs. OpenWorld hint is false and the annotations cover safety, so no further disclosure is required.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-level for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call rather than suggesting any filtering input exists.

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 a specific resource (angel number catalogue) and enumerates its contents — singles, masters, repeating, mirror, sequential — which lets an agent infer this is the browse-all listing rather than a single-number lookup. It does not, however, name or contrast with the four sibling tools (esoteric_angel_numbers_decode, _number, _today, _by_life_path_n) that occupy nearly the same space, so the distinction is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'catalogue': use this when you want the full list rather than one entry. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_number or _decode, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer selection from the sibling names alone.

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