Birthday (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's job is mostly done. It adds genuinely new operational context not in the annotations: the endpoint (POST /v1/numerology/kabbalistic/birthday) and the billing impact (10 credits, Tier 1), which lets the agent reason about consumption cost before calling.

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 short sentence of purpose followed by a compact metadata block; nothing is padded and the operation statement is front-loaded. The bracketed metadata lines are dense but each carries usable information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost).

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing for this simple two-param tool is the differentiator versus the strict-Kabbalistic sibling and any note on the 'name' input, leaving the definition just barely sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 and largely does not. 'From the day-of-birth digit' partially clarifies that only the day component of 'date' is used, but the required 'name' parameter (2-120 chars) is never explained — why a birthday-number calculation needs a name at all is left unstated.

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 Birthday number') and pins the system ('Kabbalistic (phonetic)'), which separates it from the Chaldean, Pythagorean, and Vedic birthday siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_birthday sibling, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without outside knowledge.

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 by the system label and the '[Required: name, date]' line; there is no statement of when to pick this over the strict-Kabbalistic or other-system birthday variants, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The cost hint ('10 credits, Tier 1') gives a weak selection signal but is not framed as guidance.

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