Core Numbers Chart (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the 20-credit cost, the localized-output contract including the `translated: false` fallback while strings are pending, and the `year` default. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable and cost trade-off in two tight sentences; the localization sentence is longer than it needs to be and its placement ahead of the simple 'Pythagorean system' tag is slightly awkward, but nothing is redundant.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers inputs, cost, and localization behavior. The main gap is the unexplained meaning of `name`/`date` and the dangling reference to a requested language that no parameter controls.

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 only 33% (only `year` is documented), so the description carries extra burden, yet it says nothing about whether `name` is the full birth name or whether `date` is the birth date in the schema's YYYY-MM-DD pattern. It also references 'the requested language' and a `translated` output flag although no language parameter exists in the schema, which adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 deliverable (the six core numbers: Life Path, Expression, Soul Urge, Personality, Birthday, Personal Year) for a named system in a single call. The phrase 'in one call' plus the cost comparison against 'six single calls' makes it distinguishable from the pythagorean_life_path/expression/etc. siblings without opening any schema.

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 economics ('20 credits instead of 60 for six single calls') implicitly tell the agent to use this when multiple core numbers are needed and the single-number siblings when only one is. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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