Balance (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description goes beyond them with cost (10 credits, Tier 1), the HTTP endpoint, and required inputs, which materially helps an agent budget and plan the 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?

The calculation sentence is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata is compact and scannable. Nothing is redundant, though the keyed bracket lines are close to schema restatement.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain return values. However, it omits what a Balance number signifies and how to choose between the strict and default kabbalistic variants, leaving real gaps for a numerology tool with two opaque inputs.

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, but it only repeats that 'name' and 'date' are required. It never explains what the date represents (birth date vs. calculation date) or that name should be the full birth name — the very input the Balance calculation depends on.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: it computes the Balance number, and it pins down the derivation (from initials of each part of the full name). The '(Mathers strict)' system label separates it from astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_balance, but the description never names that sibling explicitly, leaving the distinction implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not statement, and no routing to the non-strict kabbalistic or other-system balance tools sitting right next to it. Usage is only implied by the group tag and system name, which is the definition of a 3.

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