Personality (kabbalistic-strict)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, providing sufficient behavioral transparency. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations.

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 concise but includes an example request body that introduces a parameter not in the schema, causing confusion. Conciseness is present but flawed by misleading content.

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 fails to explain what the tool returns. Additionally, the parameter mismatch leaves the tool's required inputs unclear, making the description incomplete.

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?

The description's example includes a 'name' parameter not present in the input schema, while the schema includes parameters like latitude, longitude, etc., which seem irrelevant to the calculation. Despite 100% schema coverage, the mismatch between description and schema undermines parameter semantics.

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 Personality number from consonants of the full birth name using the Kabbalistic Mathers strict system. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like life_path or soul_urge by specifying the exact calculation.

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 implies usage through the group 'Numerology — Kabbalistic (Mathers strict)' and the title, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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