Lucky Numbers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the required-input contract, which an agent genuinely needs before calling. It says nothing about response shape, latency, or failure modes beyond that, so it adds some value but not rich context.

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 content is five short lines with zero padding and the essential contract items are front-loaded, which is efficient. But the brevity reads as under-specification rather than discipline: the one substantive sentence is a fragment and the rest is boilerplate metadata.

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 13-parameter compute tool with 23% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: no indication of how sign selection relates to the required birth data, no guidance on the three enums, and no clarification of what 'per sign' means in the response. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain severe.

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 description coverage is only 23% across 13 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. It merely repeats the four required fields (date, time, latitude, longitude) that the schema's required array already declares, leaving ayanamsa, zodiacType, houseSystem, cosmogram, city, and name unexplained — and the choice of sidereal school plausibly changes the output numbers.

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 names a recognizable resource (a lucky-number set tied to zodiac signs, computed Gematria-style) but is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never says whether it derives numbers from a natal chart or returns a static per-sign table. It gives no differentiation from near neighbors such as astroway_financial_lucky_day or astroway_kabbalah_gematria, both of which sound equally applicable.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over astroway_financial_lucky_day, astroway_kabbalah_gematria, or the numerology family. The bracketed group and endpoint metadata are catalog tags, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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