Namesake — baby name catalog and guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: every guide is free to read (no auth/payment concerns) and the returned content exactly matches the human-facing page. No contradictions with 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 one tight sentence with a front-loaded return statement, followed by a compact list of known topics. Zero filler, every clause carries information.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/non-destructive behavior, the description supplies everything needed for a correct call: return structure, access context, and the full set of valid topic values. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already covers the topic parameter fully with an example slug, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a complete list of 8 known topic slugs, going beyond the schema's single generic example and giving the agent concrete valid inputs. This is meaningful added value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one guide's full content (title, intro, sections)'. The clarifying phrase 'the same content the human page renders' further pins down the exact scope, and the enumerated known topics distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides or get_name without ambiguity.

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 usage context is clear: call this when you need the full content of a single guide, identified by its topic slug. The list of known topics helps the agent recognize valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as using list_guides to discover additional topics, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by specifying the tool returns a public profile and listing exactly which data fields are included, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, normalization, or rate limits. This is adequate but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists the returned profile attributes. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It names all major profile components, communicates that the profile is public, and is accompanied by read-only annotations. This is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the `name` parameter. The description adds a small amount of context by indicating the tool returns a profile for one name, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Returns), a specific resource (one baby name's public profile), and enumerates the profile components (meaning, origin, pronunciation, syllables, style/vibe tags, popularity, Namesake score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_names, which find names rather than retrieve a single profile.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single name's profile, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over search_names or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is present but only implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by confirming the operation is exhaustive ('every'), restricting to free-to-read content, and listing the exact known topics. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope. The enumerated topic list is long but directly useful for an agent to understand expected results without requiring an API call. Every element serves a 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 zero parameters, a clear scope, an exhaustive topic list, and an output schema present, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The openWorldHint=false annotation reinforces that the list is complete, and the description aligns with that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage, and the description adds operational context instead of parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('baby-naming guide'), and an explicit scope ('every published, free-to-read ... on this host'). It also enumerates the known topics, which removes ambiguity about what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you want all published guides rather than a single one, and the scope 'every published, free-to-read' sets context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, such as 'use get_guide for a single guide.'

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it lists feeds and their availability, and points to the published OpenAPI spec, which is extra context beyond the annotations. No contradiction; it adds useful behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and the second provides a helpful pointer to external documentation. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the type of information returned (feeds and availability), and a link to the OpenAPI spec for deeper details. An agent can call it confidently without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than 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 states a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('Namesake's free machine-readable feeds') and adds the detail that it shows their MCP/REST availability. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_guide, get_name, list_guides, search_names) which are about names and guides, not feeds.

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 when to use it: whenever you need to discover available feeds and how to access them (MCP/REST). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling overlaps. It is clear enough without explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses what the response contains: name, origin, short meaning, 2024 SSA popularity rank, Namesake score, trend label, and that results are ordered by popularity. This adds meaningful behavioral context about output content and ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and every clause adds value: search method, returned fields, and ordering. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with two fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the search method, return fields, and ordering. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation or when-not-to-use guidance, but this is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already fully described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('the baby name catalog'), and the method ('by prefix/substring'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_name and list_guides through its search-oriented operation, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with exact-name lookup.

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 when to use the tool by specifying 'prefix/substring' search, so an agent can infer it is for partial-name lookups. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as preferring get_name for exact names, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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