Maturity (kabbalistic)

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the derivation formula and activation age, aligning with annotations. No contradiction. However, it does not disclose potential effects of optional parameters or edge cases.

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 two concise sentences plus a group label and example. No redundant information; every part adds value. Well-structured and front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

With no output schema and optional parameters (latitude, longitude, timezoneOffset) unexplained, the description does not fully specify input expectations or return structure. The example omits optional fields, leaving their use unclear for this calculation.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds no extra parameter details. The example request includes 'name' which is not in the schema, potentially misleading an agent about required inputs.

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 the tool calculates the Kabbalistic Maturity number, derived from Life Path and Expression, with activation at age 35. It specifies the system (Kabbalistic phonetic) and provides a formula, but does not differentiate between this and the strict Kabbalistic version among siblings.

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 description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other maturity calculators (like strict or Pythagorean versions). It mentions activation age but does not address context or prerequisites, nor does it advise against use in any scenario.

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