baby-age

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well by enumerating the returned fields (years/months/weeks/days, totals, zodiac, birthstone, current/next milestone, 100-day/1st-birthday/1000-day dates). It doesn't discuss error behavior or how past-vs-future dates are handled, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage directive. The long output enumeration is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return-value detail the missing output schema would otherwise provide and states when to call it. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only error/edge-case behavior left unstated.

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% and the single parameter's format, pattern, and constraint are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics about the birthday input, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Get a baby's exact age from a birth date') and enumerates precisely what is returned, so the agent knows this is an aggregate age calculator rather than a component lookup. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling partial tools (get_birthstone, get_zodiac_sign, get_milestone_dates) to say it supersedes them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('any how old is the baby question') and a clear directive to prefer this tool over computing the value manually. It does not, however, address when to use the narrower siblings instead, so no exclusions or alternatives are covered.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload in unusual depth: every stone for the month, colors, hardness, sources, story, baby meaning, keepsake ideas, a safety note, zodiac signs, quick answers, and a guide link. What it omits are operational traits such as auth requirements, failure modes for invalid dates, and whether the guide is static or computed.

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?

A single long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating the contents, and every listed item corresponds to something the agent will receive. The enumeration is dense rather than padded; only the trailing directive sits awkwardly after the content list.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it enumerates the return payload and flags the one item that must be relayed to the user. Nothing critical is missing, though failure handling for a future date and the shape of 'quick answers' remain unspecified.

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 already 100% (pattern and 'not in the future' constraint are in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: the guide is keyed to the birth date's month, implying day and year do not change the result, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the full birthstone guide') with the keying dimension ('for a birth date's month') made explicit, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_zodiac_sign, even though the month's zodiac signs are part of its output, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over get_zodiac_sign or the other baby-date tools, and no exclusions; usage is only inferable from the tool name and resource. The one directive given ('Always pass on the safety note with keepsake ideas') governs handling of the result rather than tool selection.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the output fields (dates, days_left, reached) and suggests a read operation via 'get', but does not affirmatively state non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits.

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, directly stating the function and a suggested use case. Every sentence contributes value, and no extraneous content is present.

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?

The description adequately covers the input and outlines the output (dates, days_left, reached) despite lacking an output schema. It mentions all 25 milestones and the three output fields, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'birthday', so the description adds little beyond restating that a birth date is needed. The baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 retrieves exact calendar dates for 25 baby milestones from a birth date, specifying the data returned (days_left, reached status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_baby_age and list_milestones.

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 provides a clear usage hint ('Use this to add baby milestones to a calendar') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools. Nonetheless, the context implies its specific purpose.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (element, nickname, date range, guide link) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. Basic transparency is achieved but could be more explicit.

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, concise sentence of 19 words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary elaboration, making every word count.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and expected outputs. It mentions four output attributes, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capability, though the exact format is left unspecified.

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 provides full description coverage (100%) for the single 'birthday' parameter. The description adds a valuable constraint ('not in the future') that is not present in the schema, thus enhancing comprehensibility beyond the structured definition.

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 retrieves the Western zodiac sign for a birth date, along with additional details like element, nickname, date range, and guide link. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on age or milestones.

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?

While the description implies usage for zodiac sign queries, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The sibling context makes the intended use somewhat clear, but no direct advice is given.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes output structure and that it's a read-only list of known types. It adds context about the fixed 25 count, but could mention whether the list is exhaustive or dynamic.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no fluff. Efficient and clear.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the count, and references a sibling tool for next steps. No gaps.

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?

No parameters, baseline 4. Description clarifies that no input (like birth date) is needed, adding meaning beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states it lists 25 baby milestone types with fields (name, emoji, day offset, group). It distinguishes from the sibling get_milestone_dates by noting that tool converts to real dates.

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?

Explicitly says 'No birth date needed' and 'Use get_milestone_dates to turn these into real dates,' giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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