Maturity (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is lighter. It adds real operational context the annotations don't carry: cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), the POST endpoint, and the deterministic required inputs.

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 core definition is the first sentence, and the bracketed metadata block is compact and skimmable. A small amount of boilerplate (group line duplicates the system note) but nothing wasteful.

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 need no explanation and annotations cover safety; the description supplies purpose, input requirements, cost and endpoint. Missing only guidance on choosing this over the non-strict kabbalistic maturity or the full strict chart.

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 0% — neither property has a description — and the description only echoes 'Required: name, date'. It adds no meaning about the date format (the YYYY-MM-DD pattern lives only in the schema) or what name is used for (letter-value encoding in the Mathers system).

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 ('Calculate') and the exact derived quantity ('Maturity number: sum of Life Path and Expression'), plus the system variant ('Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)') that separates it from the plain kabbalistic, Pythagorean, Vedic and Chaldean maturity siblings.

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 label ('Mathers strict') implicitly tells an agent which sibling family this belongs to, and 'activates around age 35' hints at when the result matters. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. use the strict chart tool when you need all numbers at once).

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