Soul Urge / Heart's Desire (pythagorean)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add operational context — and it does: endpoint, required fields, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost. What is missing is any note on name normalization (accents, hyphens, married names) or error behaviour, which matters for a name-derived calculation.

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 front-loaded and zero-waste at one line. The bracketed metadata block is boilerplate but compact, and the cost line earns its place.

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 the return value needn't be described. Still, for a 2-required-parameter tool sitting among fifteen sibling numerology endpoints, the unexplained date parameter and the unaddressed system-variant choice leave real gaps an agent would hit when selecting or calling it.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully specifies that 'name' is the full birth name (vowels of it), which is real semantic value. However, 'date' is entirely unexplained — nothing says why a vowel-based name calculation also requires a birth date, nor its YYYY-MM-DD format.

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 Soul Urge number from the vowels of the full birth name') and names the system ('Pythagorean'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling pythagorean tools such as expression, personality, and life_path. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for the neighbouring numbers, so it stops just 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite the sibling list containing soul-urge tools in Chaldean, Kabbalistic, and Vedic systems. An agent must infer from the name alone which system variant to pick.

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