Maturity (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety burden is off the description. It adds real operational context in the cost line ('10 credits (Tier 1)') and the endpoint/method, but says nothing about ordering, caching, or edge cases in the computation.

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 purpose and formula in one sentence, then bracketed metadata. The required-params line is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall there is little waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and cost/method are disclosed. However, for a two-parameter calculator with zero schema descriptions, the definition should clarify parameter expectations and system-selection context that it currently omits.

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 the description only restates '[Required: name, date]', which the schema's required array already communicates. It adds no meaning about name formatting, date-time handling, or why both are needed for a Life Path + Expression sum.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Calculate the Maturity number') with the actual derivation ('sum of Life Path and Expression') and timing ('activates around age 35'). The trailing 'Pythagorean system' tag cleanly separates it from the Chaldean, Kabbalistic, and Vedic 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 description never says when to pick this over astroway_numerology_pythagorean_life_path or _expression (the components it sums), nor when another system's maturity number is preferable. It only implies usage through the 'age 35' remark, leaving routing to inference.

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