Gematria ciphers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuine domain behavior: diacritics and cantillation are stripped, and final letters are returned under both the ordinary and 500-900 conventions instead of one being chosen. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious output behavior an agent cannot get from 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cipher list, then the two normalization rules. No filler; the final-letter explanation is long but load-bearing since it explains why duplicate values appear.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description supplies the input constraint and the letter-handling rules an agent needs to interpret results. Only the input length limit and the meaning of 'inclusive' remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it implicitly constrains the sole `text` parameter to Hebrew, which is valuable, but never states the 1-500 character bounds or what happens to non-Hebrew characters. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

Names the specific computation (gematria over Hebrew text) and enumerates all seven ciphers produced, which is far more concrete than the title. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_kabbalah_sephiroth or astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'over a Hebrew text' implies the only valid input class and thus when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative for Latin-script names or general numerology. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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