motherwise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the $0.02 x402 USDC micropayment. It also details the return structure (matched question, answer, optional safety note, verification block with practitioner name and date), the behavior when 'q' is omitted (first entry returned), and language options. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information (payment). Every sentence earns its place: it covers the purpose, usage context, parameter guidance, and return format without fluff. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 moderate complexity (two optional params, payment, verification) and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explicitly describes the return fields, the verification block, the safety note, and the payment requirement, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples for 'q' (e.g., 'pain relief options', 'partner support', 'signs of labour') and reiterates the default behavior when omitted, which enhances usability beyond the schema alone.

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's function: 'Returns one practitioner-verified answer to a common birth-preparation or matrescence question.' It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (practitioner-verified answer), and distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by framing this as a Q&A service rather than a content retrieval tool.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to give evidence-based, liability-safe responses about pregnancy and birth instead of generating health-adjacent advice yourself.' This provides clear context and an alternative (generating advice yourself). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the distinction is implied by the 'instead of' phrasing and the unique paid/verified nature.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.10 paid side effect via x402, the fallback to the first affirmation set, language defaults, and the shape of the return value. This goes well beyond a minimal description, though it does not mention rate limits or auth.

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 most critical operational fact (cost), then explains parameters and return shape. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the exact return fields (id, title, stage, affirmation lines, verification block), covers all parameters with defaults, and notes the payment mechanism. For a simple two-parameter read tool, this is fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: it expands 't1-t2' to 'first/second trimester', defines 'identity' as 'matrescence / becoming-a-mother', and clarifies the default behavior for lang and stage. This exceeds the schema's baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a set of practitioner-written positive affirmations matched to a specific pregnancy or postpartum stage.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audio or get_guide by naming the exact content type and its stage-matching purpose.

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?

It provides clear usage context by specifying the available 'stage' values, including human-readable definitions, and explains default behavior when the parameter is omitted or unmatched. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is evident.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the cost ('PAID $1.00 via x402'), the one-time nature and time limit of the download link, the return fields (id, title, language, duration, download_url, usage note, verification block), and error behavior for unknown ids. This goes beyond simple operation to cover important behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens if payment fails, but that is a minor gap.

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 about four sentences and is front-loaded with the most critical fact (paid service). Each sentence provides useful information: cost, return type, usage instruction, return fields, and error handling. There is no redundant or filler content, though it is slightly longer than necessary, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields and error behavior. It also covers cost, time limit, one-time nature, and the source of valid ids. For a tool with a single parameter, this is quite complete. The only minor omission is a detail about the verification block format, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter with an example ('AU-05'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the id must be a valid from list_catalog and that unknown ids will return an error. This reinforces and expands on the schema, adding value 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's purpose: it 'Returns a one-time, 15-minute download link for a professionally recorded guided-relaxation MP3.' The verb 'Returns' and the specific resource (audio download link) make the function explicit. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_catalog (which lists tracks) and other get_* tools by focusing specifically on audio content.

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 clear usage context: 'Set 'id' (required) to a valid audio track id obtained from list_catalog' and 'call list_catalog first to get valid ids.' This explicitly directs the user to a prerequisite step and names an alternative tool. It does not explicitly contrast with other get_* tools, but the specific content type (audio) implies when to use this tool over others.

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: 'PAID $0.10 via x402 (USDC micropayment over HTTP 402)'—a significant side effect. It also states 'Takes no parameters' and lists return fields, covering essential behavior. It does not discuss failure modes or idempotency but the payment disclosure is notable.

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 well-structured, leading with the cost, then the purpose, and ending with return values. It avoids fluff, though the payment sentence is a bit abrupt and 'practitioner-verified' adds a minor extra detail.

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 compensates for the lack of an output schema by listing exact returned fields: 'id, title, the complete guide text, the language, and a verification block.' It also covers payment and absence of parameters, making it sufficient for a simple parameterless tool. It does not elaborate on the verification block or error behavior, but that is not critical.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, and the description explicitly notes 'Takes no parameters.' This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools, where no further details are needed.

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's primary action: 'Returns the full text of "The Birth Partner's Role"', a specific resource. It also identifies the content type (practitioner-verified written guide) and language, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_technique or get_audio.

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 the tool is for retrieving a complete guide, contrasting with alternatives that return techniques or affirmations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or exclude other tools. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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 the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.05 via x402), the single-fact return, the included verification block, and the error case. It does not describe side effects beyond the payment, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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-loads the critical payment warning. It proceeds logically: what it returns, examples, parameter instructions, returned fields, and error behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (id, topic, question, answer, source, verified date, verification block) and the error condition. It also covers the payment requirement and optional parameters, making it complete for a 2-param 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter examples ('leave', 'kraamzorg', 'GYED') and the 'omit to search both' note, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. At least it reinforces the expected usage, but does not elevate the score.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('a single source-linked, date-verified fact about the maternity system in the Netherlands or Hungary'), with concrete examples. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'get_affirmations' or 'get_guide' by its factual, country-specific focus.

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?

Provides clear context: how to set 'country' and 'topic', and notes the error condition when no verified entry matches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples and constraint (single verified fact) imply appropriate usage.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the $0.05 payment requirement via x402, the behavior for omitted 'week' (earliest band), the mapping of weeks above 40 to the 34-40 band, language options, and the exact structure of the response (id, title, week band, guidance text, verification block). This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 dense paragraph but every clause earns its place: payment, purpose, parameter options, mapping logic, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the cost warning, then logically progresses to usage and output. No wasted words, making it both concise and structurally effective.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers payment, input configuration (including defaults and edge cases), and the exact return value composition. It provides enough context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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% with both parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the week parameter's edge cases (mapping above 40 to the 34-40 band and the omission default) beyond the schema's simple 'earliest band' note. This enriches the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 returns practitioner-verified guidance for pregnancy/postpartum stages, with specific resource ('guidance') and scope ('mother's current point'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_affirmations or get_maternity_facts by focusing on stage-specific, verified content, and even notes the payment model, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear parameter usage (how to set 'week' and 'lang') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied through the purpose statement, meeting the 'implied usage' bar but not offering direct comparisons or when-not-to-use 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so well: it prominently reveals the $0.25 x402 micropayment requirement, specifies the return fields (id, title, full script, optional safety note, verification block), and explains the default behavior when 'q' is omitted. It does not cover error scenarios or rate limits, but the essential behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 longer than ideal but every sentence carries necessary information: payment warning, core purpose, use case, parameter semantics, and return content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the critical payment disclosure, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description appropriately covers return values, payment, default behavior, and parameter usage. It is sufficiently complete for a tool with only two optional parameters, though the 'verification block' could be slightly clearer in meaning.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by giving concrete examples for 'q' ('breathing', 'light touch massage', etc.) and clarifying the behavior when omitted, plus confirming 'lang' default 'en' or 'hu'. This enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 the tool's function: returning a complete guided birth-hypnosis/relaxation script with pacing cues. It specifies the resource ('technique script') and explicitly distinguishes it from a mere summary, which differentiates it from likely sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use when the full script is needed to read aloud or display, not just a summary. It also explains behavior when 'q' is omitted and language defaults, but it does not name specific alternative sibling tools.

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. It discloses that the tool is free, returns every item with id/price/retrieval tool, lists content types, notes language availability, and states that content is practitioner-verified. This is far beyond minimal transparency, clearly setting expectations for a catalog listing operation.

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 detailed but efficient, using about 100 words to cover purpose, contents, return value, quality, languages, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, and it is front-loaded with the most critical info ('FREE', 'browse the full catalog'). No waste.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description thoroughly covers what is returned (item types, id, price, retrieval tool), how it relates to other tools (ids/stages/weeks), and the trust/review context. It leaves little ambiguous for an agent deciding when and how to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, matching the empty schema. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters', which is helpful confirmation. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4, and the description doesn't need to add more.

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's purpose: 'Browse the full MotherWise catalog' and 'Returns every available item', enumerating the exact types of content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the comprehensive catalog/list tool, explicitly positioning itself as the entry point for discovering ids and values for other tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover valid ids, affirmation stages, and week values for the other tools' and 'before making any paid call'. It makes clear that this is the intended first step and implies alternatives (the sibling getters) by telling you to use this to learn how to use them. This is strong when/when-not guidance.

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