Daily Angel Number

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds meaningfully: the computation method, the credit cost (5 credits, Tier ½), and the endpoint grouping. That extra cost and algorithm context is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence plus compact metadata blocks; the computation is front-loaded and every line carries information. Slightly cluttered by the group/endpoint headers, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description never states what makes the number 'personal' — no birth date or user identity input is described, leaving the core computation under-explained for a 0-parameter tool.

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 declares zero parameters, but the description advertises an optional `?date=YYYY-MM-DD` query, which is absent from the input schema. This gives useful format information, but the schema/description mismatch is a genuine inconsistency an agent could trip over.

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 verb and resource ('Compute today's personal angel number') and explains the algorithm (digit-sum reduced to a single digit). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like angel_numbers_number or angel_numbers_decode, which take a number, but never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this daily variant versus astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers, astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_decode, or astroway_esoteric_angel_numbers_by_life_path_n — a dense cluster of near-identical siblings. The 'today' framing implies daily use, but nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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