Birthday (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint, the required fields, and a cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which lets an agent budget calls.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by compact bracketed metadata. Every line carries information; nothing is padded.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover behavior. Purpose, system, required inputs and cost are all present; the only real gap is the unexplained role of 'name', which is minor for a two-parameter calculation.

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 and does not. It hints that the day-of-birth digit drives the calculation but never explains what the required 'name' parameter contributes to a day-number computation, nor the expected date format beyond the raw regex in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Calculate the Birthday number") and pins the system to "Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)", which distinguishes it from the Chaldean, Pythagorean, Vedic and plain Kabbalistic birthday siblings. The label alone carries the differentiation from astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_birthday (non-strict), so the agent must infer that 'strict' means a variant algorithm.

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?

Usage is implied through the group/system label rather than stated: nothing says when to pick Mathers-strict over the plain Kabbalistic birthday tool, or what the difference in output would be. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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