Maturity (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: the POST endpoint, the 10-credit Tier 1 cost, and the required fields. It does not describe return contents, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful information (method, system, timing). The trailing bracketed metadata is compact and scannable, though the required-fields line is redundant with the 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?

Output schema handles return values and annotations handle safety, so the remaining burden is input meaning, which is left under-specified (birth date vs reading date, name conventions). Adequate for a trivial two-field calculation tool, but not complete.

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 burden, and it does not: it merely repeats '[Required: name, date]'. Critically, it never clarifies that 'date' is the birth date rather than a reading date, nor how the name feeds the phonetic Kabbalistic conversion—real ambiguities for an agent filling the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Calculate the Maturity number') and adds a definition of the derivation (sum of Life Path and Expression) plus the system qualifier 'Kabbalistic (phonetic)'. This implicitly distinguishes it from the Chaldean/Pythagorean/Vedic and 'strict' maturity siblings, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The 'activates around age 35' note gives interpretative context for the result but not selection guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_strict_maturity or the other traditions' maturity tools, so the agent must infer from the system label.

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