Birthday (vedic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational facts: the endpoint, the required inputs, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost that an agent needs for budgeting. It does not describe the shape of the result, but an output schema exists and carries that.

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 wastes no words; the bracketed metadata lines are terse and scannable. Slightly fragmented as prose, but every line carries operational information.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only calculator with an output schema, most of what an agent needs is present: cost, endpoint, required inputs, and tradition. What's missing is the role of the required 'name' field and any signal about picking Vedic versus the Chaldean/Pythagorean birthday tools.

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% — the schema gives only types, a date pattern, and a 2-120 length bound on name, with no descriptions. The description says the number comes from the day-of-birth digit, which hints that only the day part of 'date' matters, but it never explains why 'name' is mandatory for a computation based on the birth day. That unexplained required parameter is a real gap the description should have filled.

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') and pins the tradition ('Vedic system'), which separates it from the Chaldean/Pythagorean/Kabbalistic birthday siblings whose names differ only by tradition. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or clarifying how the Birthday number differs from life_path/expression within the same Vedic group.

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 group tag and the phrase 'from the day-of-birth digit' imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor a pointer to the sibling tools for the other numerology systems. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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