Maturity (chaldean)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds cost ('10 credits (Tier 1)'), the POST endpoint, and the required-input contract — genuinely useful facts not in annotations. No pagination/limits are relevant for a single 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 formula and system are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact metadata block (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost). No sentence is redundant.

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 not be described, and the two-parameter input is simple. Cost, endpoint, and system context are all supplied. The only meaningful omission is what form the name must take, which matters for correctness of a name-based calculation.

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 carries the burden, yet it only repeats 'Required: name, date' which the schema already declares. It does not clarify the key ambiguity for numerology — whether 'name' means full birth-certificate name versus a common nickname — or the date format, which the schema only conveys via a regex pattern.

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 ('Calculate the Maturity number') and defines its derivation ('sum of Life Path and Expression'), plus names the Chaldean system. This distinguishes it cleanly from the pythagorean, kabbalistic, and vedic maturity siblings without opening any schema.

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 'activates around age 35' note implies when the result becomes relevant, and the formula implies you don't need to call life_path and expression separately. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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