Balance (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful operational context that annotations cannot express: the POST endpoint, the required inputs, and the cost of 10 credits (Tier 1). It says nothing about what the calculation does with the supplied date or about failure behavior for malformed names.

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 prose is two tight sentences with the operative clause first, followed by clearly delimited metadata lines rather than padding. No sentence is wasted, though the bracketed header lines duplicate structured data already available.

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 cover safety. What remains missing is the role of the date parameter and any pointer to the strict-balance sibling, both of which an agent needs in order to choose correctly among the ~30 numerology tools.

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 coverage is 0% - neither parameter carries a description, only a regex pattern and length bounds - so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name' should be a full name parsed into parts, but it never explains why a 'date' is required for a number derived purely from name initials, which is the more confusing of the two parameters.

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 specific derived number ('Balance number') from 'initials of each part of the full name', and names the Kabbalistic (phonetic) system. This separates it from the Chaldean, Pythagorean and Vedic balance siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_balance, which produces an ostensibly similar result.

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 when-to-use guidance and no explicit alternates. The only selection aids are the bracketed group tag and the note that name and date are required, leaving the agent to infer why one would pick this balance over the strict, Chaldean, Pythagorean, or Vedic variants.

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