Birthday (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: a concrete cost of 10 credits (Tier 1) and the POST endpoint, which lets an agent gauge budget impact. It says nothing about latency or caching, so it is not a 5.

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 sentence is one line and front-loaded, followed by a scannable bracket block. The endpoint line is arguably redundant for an MCP caller, but the whole thing is short and wastes little space.

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 and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need no prose. However, in a catalog with dozens of numerology tools, the description never explains what the Birthday number represents or how it relates to life_path/chart, which leaves a conceptual gap for selection.

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% and both parameters lack descriptions, so the description carries the full burden. 'from the day-of-birth digit' hints that only the day portion of `date` drives the result, but the role of the required `name` field in a day-digit calculation is left unexplained and no format guidance is given in the description.

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 ... Pythagorean system', which cleanly separates it from the four sibling birthday-number tools (chaldean, kabbalistic, kabbalistic_strict, vedic). Differentiation comes mostly from the system label rather than any explicit contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied by the '[Group: Numerology: Pythagorean]' tag and the required-parameter line. There is no statement of when to pick this over astroway_numerology_chaldean_birthday or the chart/life_path variants, nor any prerequisite guidance.

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