Personality (vedic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: the endpoint, the required inputs, and a 10-credit Tier 1 cost, letting an agent reason about expense before calling. Auth requirements and rate limits are still unstated.

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?

Core purpose is the first sentence, with the system label and a compact metadata block behind it. Every line carries usable information (group, endpoint, required inputs, cost) and there is no filler.

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/endpoint/required inputs are all supplied for a simple two-parameter calculation. The only real gap is why a birth date is needed for a consonant-derived number, which could matter to an agent assembling arguments.

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 schema only conveys types and constraints (2-120 chars, YYYY-MM-DD pattern). The description does add real meaning for `name` by specifying it must be the full birth name, which affects correctness. The role of `date` in a name-derived number is left entirely unexplained.

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 Personality number") and pins down the derivation method ("from the consonants of the full birth name") plus the system ("Numerology: Vedic system"). That method detail implicitly separates it from vowel-based soul-urge or expression siblings, but it never names an alternative outright.

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 "Vedic system" tag implies which of the several personality-number siblings (Chaldean, Kabbalistic, Pythagorean, Vedic) to pick, so routing is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving it at implied guidance.

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