Expression / Destiny (chaldean)

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

The description indicates a read-only computation, consistent with annotations. However, the example request body includes 'name' while the schema has no such parameter, misleadingly suggesting a parameter that doesn't exist. This undermines transparency about actual tool behavior.

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 description is short and to the point, but the inclusion of a misleading example wastes space and reduces effectiveness. Better to omit the example or align it with the schema.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a number, interpretation). Given the complexity of the topic and the lack of output documentation, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 100% with adequate parameter descriptions, but the description introduces a non-existent 'name' parameter in the example, confusing the semantics. The description adds no value beyond the schema and actually degrades clarity.

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?

The description clearly states it calculates the Expression/Destiny number using the Chaldean system from the full birth name. However, the example request body includes a 'name' parameter that is not present in the input schema, causing confusion about the actual required inputs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other numerology_chaldean_* siblings. The description does not differentiate it from tools for life path, soul urge, etc., leaving the agent to guess.

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