Name correction (Chaldean and Cheiro)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive. The description adds real behaviour beyond that: the result is deterministic with no AI, costs 20 credits, and every candidate is rescored, which hints that raising limit has a cost dimension. It does not explicitly state whether cost scales with limit, which is the one behavioural detail an agent most needs.

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 second and third sentences are tight and front-load the key caveats (deterministic, credit cost). The opening sentence, however, is a single sprawling clause stuffed with parenthetical asides that slows comprehension and buries the main action.

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 described, and the two required parameters are covered by the schema. Cost tier and determinism are disclosed, making the definition sufficient for correct invocation; only the credit/limit interaction is left ambiguous.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the schema does most of the work, but the description still adds meaning: it explains what the two convention values actually mean methodologically and states that the current name is read under both while convention only selects the candidates, clarifying convention's role in a way the schema's short note does not.

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 names a specific resource and operation: computing the name number under Chaldean and Cheiro, checking compatibility with driver and conductor, and generating one-edit candidate spellings. The parenthetical detail is dense but genuinely distinguishes this from the single-convention siblings (chaldean_expresson, kabbalistic_*), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as astroway_vedic_muhurat_name_change or astroway_business_name_suggestions, which an agent could easily confuse with this. Usage is only inferable from the description of the output.

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