The Family Almanac — parenting library, guide metadata, and magazine

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral boundaries beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it returns metadata only and never the paid depth/body content, and it notes the guide must be live. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this is solid additional transparency.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that states the primary behavior, the returned fields, the limitation, and the valid input space without filler. Every clause 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what it never returns, and the valid slug set. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by enumerating 19 known slugs (pregnancy, newborn, toddler, ...) and clarifying the slug must refer to a live guide. This is extra semantic guidance beyond the schema's example-based description.

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 ('Returns') with a specific resource ('one live guide's title, subtitle, access, book count, and reading time') and explicitly scopes it as 'card-level metadata only, never the paid depth/body content', which separates it from content-returning 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 clearly defines when the tool applies — fetching metadata for a known live guide slug — but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list helps infer boundaries, so the guidance is clear context, no exclusions.

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 signal a safe read operation, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: the thesis is only returned 'when profiled.' This usefully sets agent expectations about conditional response content beyond what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint convey.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and object, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only getter with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior and conditional return content. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool-level description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('one parenting library work's bibliographic record'), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_guide and get_magazine_piece by targeting generic library works rather than those specific piece types.

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 use case is implied: call this when you have a libraryId and need a single library work's record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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 indicate this is read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior context by noting the content is the same as the human page renders and is ungated. This clarifies access expectations and return semantics beyond the structured 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 compact sentence that front-loads the core function and content shape, followed by a short list of known slugs. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 read-only tool with a defined output schema and known slug values, the description is fully adequate. It explains what content will be returned, that access is ungated, and which slugs are valid, leaving no critical gap for invocation.

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 documents the slug parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds practical value by naming the exact two known slug values. This goes beyond the generic schema description and helps an agent call the tool without guessing slug formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('one published magazine piece') and enumerates the exact content components returned: question, per-writer sections, and editor's coda. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide and get_library_work, which target different content types.

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 makes clear this tool is for retrieving a magazine piece by slug and even lists the two known valid slugs, giving concrete usage direction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity is enough to guide selection among siblings.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the output includes feeds and their MCP/REST availability, and it points to the OpenAPI document. However, it does not describe the exact response shape or any pagination/formatting details, which keeps it at a moderate score.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a useful supplementary reference to the OpenAPI URL without bloating the explanation.

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, zero-parameter listing tool with read-only annotations, the description is complete: it names what is listed, mentions the MCP/REST availability aspect, and provides an external OpenAPI link for further detail. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description directly conveys the expected result type.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs; the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and a distinct resource: The Family Almanac's free machine-readable feeds and their MCP/REST availability. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_guide or get_library_work, which retrieve individual items rather than enumerate 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 the tool: whenever the agent needs to discover available feeds and how they can be accessed via MCP/REST. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the listing purpose is clear enough for a zero-parameter discovery tool.

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 mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the no-filter default behavior and the substring/combination search semantics. It does not describe every edge case, but with annotations present, the bar is lower and the added behavior is meaningful.

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 no filler. The core purpose and key default behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It does not repeat schema details or annotations.

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 an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what it searches, how filters work, and what happens with no filters. No critical decision-making information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between parameters: title/author substring maps to query, classifier tag maps to tag, and 'and/or' indicates combinability. This is useful semantic context beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Search or list') and a specific resource ('the parenting-focused book library') with clear filter dimensions. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_library_work or get_magazine_piece, which are retrieval-oriented.

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 indicates this tool is for searching or listing the library by title/author and/or tag, and that omitting filters returns the first page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over the sibling get/list tools.

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