Core Numbers Chart (kabbalistic)

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), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing cost (20 credits, Tier 2) and a concrete fallback behavior ('translated: false' with English text while a language's strings are pending). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or pagination, but those are low-relevance for a deterministic single-POST compute call.

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?

Front-loaded with the six numbers and the cost comparison, then the output/localization detail. Four sentences, each doing work, though the localization parenthetical is longer than necessary for an agent that already has the output schema.

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-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still flags the `meaning`/`meaningLocalized` fields and the `translated: false` degradation state. Combined with system label, endpoint, required params, cost tier, and the year default, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to carry the undocumented parameters, and it does not: nothing explains that `name` should be the full phonetic/birth name (critical for a Kabbalistic phonetic system) or what `date` format/meaning is expected. Worse, it references 'the requested language' and `meaningLocalized` even though no language parameter exists in the schema, sending the agent looking for an input that isn't there.

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 (returns the six core numbers in one call) and enumerates exactly which six, so it is unmistakable against the single-number Kabbalistic siblings (life_path, expression, soul_urge, personality, birthday, personal_year). It also pins the system with 'Numerology: Kabbalistic (phonetic)', separating it from the Pythagorean/Chaldean/Vedic chart tools.

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 line '20 credits instead of 60 for six single calls' gives clear implicit routing: prefer this over six individual calls. However, it never mentions the near-identical sibling astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_chart, which an agent will reasonably confuse it with, and gives no explicit when-not conditions.

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