Life Path Number (chaldean)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, the POST endpoint, and the reduction method used. It does not discuss output shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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 the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. The cost/endpoint lines are justified, though the group tag partly duplicates the "Chaldean system" phrase already in the prose.

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 simple two-parameter read-only calculator with an output schema and full annotations, this covers method, inputs, cost, and endpoint. The one shortfall is the unexplained role of the `name` parameter, which the agent must supply but cannot reason about.

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 parameter meaning. It explains `date` well enough as a birth date reduced from year/month/day, but it merely restates the required list for `name` and never explains why a name is required for a Life Path calculation, which is the non-obvious part.

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 specific verb and output ("Calculate the Life Path number"), states the input basis (birth date), and pins the tradition ("Chaldean system"), which separates it from the pythagorean/vedic/kabbalistic life-path siblings. It does not explicitly compare itself to those siblings, so differentiation is implied by the group tag rather than stated.

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: the agent can infer it should call this for a Chaldean life-path reading and that a name and birth date are needed. There is no statement of when this is preferred over the Pythagorean or Vedic life-path tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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