Maturity (vedic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context in the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the endpoint, but says nothing about determinism or how name/date feed the computation beyond the named formula.

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?

One substantive sentence front-loaded with the definition, followed by compact structured tags; no filler. The "[Required: name, date]" tag is redundant with the schema, a minor wasted line.

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 calculator with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose and cost adequately, and return values need no explanation. The unresolved gap is meaning of the inputs (name form, date convention), which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. It only restates "[Required: name, date]", which the schema's required array already declares, and adds nothing about whether name means the full birth name, how it is normalized, or the YYYY-MM-DD date format beyond the pattern.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ("Calculate the Maturity number") and defines the quantity precisely as the sum of Life Path and Expression, which is more than a restatement of the name. The "[Group: Numerology: Vedic]" tag identifies the family and implicitly separates it from the Pythagorean/Chaldean/Kabbalistic maturity siblings, though it never explicitly routes between them.

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?

"activates around age 35" is interpretive background, not invocation guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over astroway_numerology_vedic_chart, vedic_life_path, or the other three systems' maturity tools, so the agent must infer routing from the naming convention alone.

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