Maturity (chaldean)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: 'sum of Life Path and Expression, activates around age 35.' This clarifies the calculation method and timing, beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with clear purpose, system group, and example. No superfluous text. However, structure is flat; brief bullet points or explicit sections could improve scannability.

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, and description does not explain return format or optional parameters (latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset). The schema descriptions are minimal ('Latitude (some date-only endpoints accept location)'). For a 4-param tool, context is insufficient for an agent to decide when to include location params.

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% (all parameters described). Description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond schema: it only shows an example with name and date. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value from description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Calculate the Maturity number — sum of Life Path and Expression, activates around age 35. Numerology — Chaldean system.' It specifies the verb (calculate), resource (Maturity number), and system (Chaldean), distinguishing it from siblings like numerology_kabbalistic_maturity and numerology_pythagorean_maturity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions activation around age 35, implying it's for calculating maturity number for that age, but no comparison to other maturity tools or when-not-to-use. Among many numerology siblings, this lack of differentiation makes selection harder.

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