Personal Year (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and endpoint, which is useful context, but discloses nothing about computation or output (an output schema exists to cover returns).

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 and clearly worded, but the bracketed metadata (Group, Endpoint, Cost) adds structural noise. Every line is not strictly necessary for the agent to select and call the tool, though cost is legitimately useful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the 33% param coverage and lack of explicit sibling routing mean the definition is adequate but leaves gaps an agent could stumble on when choosing among the many numerology personal-year 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 only 33%; only 'year' has a schema description. The description adds '[Required: name, date]', confirming which params are mandatory, and the year param's default is in the schema. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 Personal Year number for a given calendar year' — and identifies the system as 'Kabbalistic (phonetic)'. This distinguishes it from the non-phonetic 'strict' Kabbalistic sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 system tag implies when to use it (users wanting Kabbalistic phonetics numerology), but there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over chaldean/pythagorean/vedic/strict personal-year tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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