Core Numbers Chart (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds useful context: credit cost, the `translated: false` fallback behavior for localized meanings, and the current-year default for `year`. It does not explain how the 'requested language' is supplied, since no language parameter appears in the schema.

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 description is front-loaded with the core deliverable, then layers cost, output localization behavior, and system identification without wasted prose. The structure lets an agent grasp the tool's value and constraints quickly.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, cost, output meaning fields, and the year default adequately. However, it leaves out key input semantics for `name` and `date`, does not differentiate strict from non-strict Kabbalistic numerology, and references a 'requested language' not represented in the input schema.

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 only 33%, with just `year` documented. The description restates the year default and notes required `name` and `date`, but it does not clarify whether `name` should be the full birth name, current name, or another spelling, nor whether `date` is the birth date or a reference date, which is critical for numerology calculations.

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 description clearly states the tool returns the six core numerology numbers in one call and names all six, plus identifies the Kabbalistic (Mathers strict) system. It distinguishes itself from six single-number calls, but does not explicitly explain how it differs from the non-strict `astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_chart` 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?

It gives a clear usage signal by comparing 20 credits for this chart against 60 credits for six single calls, implying this is the efficient choice when all six core numbers are needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use the single-number tools instead or mention alternatives for additional numbers like Maturity, Balance, or Challenge.

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