Balance (chaldean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the POST endpoint and a 10-credit (Tier 1) cost, which matters for budgeting calls. It does not explain what is returned or how the date affects the computation.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, and the bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, required fields, cost) is scannable. Slight redundancy in restating required parameters that the schema already enforces.

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 no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter calculation. Still missing is the role of 'date' and any note on what the Balance number signifies, which leaves a knowledgeable agent guessing on one of only two inputs.

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 parameter burden. It clarifies 'name' as the full name whose part-initials are used, but gives no meaning at all for 'date' — an agent cannot tell whether it is the birth date, a reference date, or its format.

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 (calculate), a specific derived value (Balance number), the input derivation (initials of each part of the full name) and the system (Chaldean). This is clear enough to separate it from the other Chaldean tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling Balance variants such as the Pythagorean, Kabbalistic or Vedic ones.

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 name and the 'Chaldean system' tag; there is no sentence saying when an agent should pick this over astroway_numerology_pythagorean_balance or astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_balance, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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