Personality (chaldean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context the agent needs for routing decisions: the endpoint, the required inputs, and the billing cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) – cost is material and appears nowhere in the 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?

One substantive sentence front-loads the definition, followed by a compact bracketed metadata block listing group, endpoint, required params and cost. No redundancy with the title, no filler.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the role of the required date parameter and any name-format expectations (transliteration, spacing, suffixes) are left unaddressed, which matters for a calculation whose input is a name string.

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 semantic load. It clarifies that 'name' means the full birth name used for consonant extraction, which is real added meaning, but the required 'date' parameter is never explained (birth date? calculation date?) and the date format is left entirely to the schema 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 (Calculate) and a precisely delimited resource: the Personality number derived from the consonants of the full birth name in the Chaldean system. That derivation rule implicitly distinguishes it from vowel-based tools (soul_urge) and from the Pythagorean/Vedic/Kabbalistic variants, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Group tag '[Numerology: Chaldean]' and the consonant-based definition imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over astroway_numerology_chaldean_expression or astroway_numerology_chaldean_chart, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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