vedika_numerology

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose per-call cost ($0.003-0.010), which is real added value for a paid calculation endpoint. However, it never states the return shape (raw number vs. number plus interpretation), whether inputs are validated, or latency characteristics — notable omissions given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then delivers one dense line per calculation type followed by cost — no filler. The telegraphic 'X = Y' style is efficient but reads as a list dump rather than guiding prose, which slightly limits readability for an agent parsing intent.

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 7 parameters, nested person objects, and no output schema, the description covers input intent well but leaves two material gaps: what actually comes back from a calculation, and how this differs from the sibling vedika_numerology_complete which shares the same 'complete' concept. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to choose confidently.

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% so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the conceptual basis of each type (full name → destiny, consonants → personality, vowels → soul urge, birth date → life path), which lets an agent infer which inputs a requested type needs before reading the schema. It does not address 'system' or 'year' semantics beyond the enum labels already in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (numerology calculations) and enumerates every calculation type in the enum with a one-line meaning for each, so an agent can map intent to a type value. The one gap is that the sibling vedika_numerology_complete is never mentioned, even though this tool also exposes a 'complete' type — that overlap isn't disambiguated.

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 per-type glosses ('Life Path (birth date) = life purpose', 'Compatibility = two-person comparison') effectively tell the agent which type to select for which question, and the cost line gives a reason to prefer cheaper single types over 'complete'. No explicit when-not guidance or sibling routing (e.g. vs vedika_compatibility) is provided.

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