Angel Numbers for Life Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful cost caveat ('not in the public credit manifest'), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether results are static per life-path number, even though an output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by compact metadata. The second sentence is somewhat padded but does not bloat the definition.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps (sibling routing, return details) are minor given the structured fields already present.

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% and the schema itself documents the valid values (1-9, 11, 22, 33). The description merely restates that range, adding no new meaning such as whether invalid values are clamped, rejected, or whether master numbers behave differently.

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 states a specific resource (angel numbers) and the exact scope (aligned to a life-path number), so an agent knows what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_number or astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_today, leaving ambiguity about which one to call.

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 only usage hint is the vague 'Useful to identify recurring numerical signatures aligned with one's soul path', which is aspirational rather than operational. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling angel-number endpoints (by number, decode, today) or over numerology life-path endpoints, and no exclusions.

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