Personal Year (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful costing detail (10 credits, Tier 1) and the required-field set, but says nothing about determinism of the year default or what the output contains. With annotations carrying most of the burden, 3 is appropriate.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence plus a compact metadata block of group, endpoint, required fields and cost. No filler, though the endpoint string and group tag are largely redundant with the tool name.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover safety. Required params and cost are surfaced. The main omission is any discrimination from the many sibling personal-year and Kabbalistic tools, which for a namespaced API this large is a meaningful gap but not fatal.

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 33%, and the only per-parameter description in the schema is the optional 'year' (default current year UTC). The description adds no extra meaning for 'name' (max 120) or 'date' (YYYY-MM-DD), though the schema pattern covers the date format. Baseline 3 fits since the schema still specifies the critical formats.

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 resource ('Personal Year number') with a scoping qualifier ('for a given calendar year: the 9-year cycle of personal evolution') and the system ('Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the non-strict sibling astroway_numerology_kabbalistic_personal_year or the Pythagorean/Vedic personal-year tools, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions that other numerology systems (Pythagorean, Chaldean, Vedic) and a non-strict Kabbalistic variant also offer Personal Year, so an agent must infer which to call from the name alone.

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