Life Path Number (kabbalistic)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the credit cost and tier. It does not explain what the returned number/the output looks like, but an output schema exists, so with annotations and cost disclosure a 3 is fair.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with no padding. The bracketed lines (Group, Endpoint, Required, Cost) are partly redundant with schema and metadata, though the cost line earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter calculation with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and cost. It leaves the agent unsure how the name input affects a date-based life-path calculation, and it does not help distinguish the strict variant.

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 compensate. It clarifies that 'date' is a birth date reduced from year/month/day, but never explains why 'name' (min 2, max 120 chars) is required for a calculation derived from birth date, nor does it give the YYYY-MM-DD format or say what the name is used for in the phonetic system. That is a meaningful gap on a 2-param tool.

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 Life Path number') and names the Kabbalistic phonetic system, which separates it from the Pythagorean, Vedic, and Chaldean siblings. It does not distinguish itself from astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_life_path, the closest sibling that shares the same system, so the differentiation is partial.

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_kabbalistic_strict_life_path, astroway_numerology_pythagorean_life_path, or the other life-path variants. A 'Required: name, date' line restates the schema but tells the agent nothing about selection conditions.

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