Personal Year (chaldean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context — endpoint, required fields, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost — but says nothing about error behavior, minimum billing, or what a missing year defaults to beyond what the schema states.

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 wastes no words, and the bracketed metadata block is compact and scannable. Slight redundancy in repeating 'Numerology: Chaldean' already implied by the name and group tag.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is the semantics of the two required inputs (birth name vs. arbitrary name, birth date vs. target date) — the very ambiguity most likely to cause a wrong call.

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 33% — only `year` is documented in the schema. The description's 'Required: name, date' merely restates the schema's required array and does not clarify that `name` should be the full birth name used for Chaldean letter values, nor that `date` is the birth date rather than an event date.

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 Personal Year number for a given calendar year', plus the '9-year cycle of personal evolution' framing. The 'Chaldean system' tag separates it from the Pythagorean/Vedic/Kabbalistic personal_year siblings, though it does so only via system label rather than an explicit sibling callout.

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 guidance on when to choose this over astroway_numerology_pythagorean_personal_year or the other personal-year variants, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection purely from the system name.

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