motherwise

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

Discloses key behaviors: paid nature ($1.00), one-time download link, and 15-minute expiration. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it well.

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?

Three focused sentences with no redundancy: cost and content, output behavior, and prerequisite. Front-loaded with essential payment info.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: purpose, cost, author, language, output type, expiration, and data source. Fully sufficient for a simple single-parameter 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 covers parameter 'id' completely, but description adds value by directing users to 'list_catalog' for valid IDs, supplementing the schema example.

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 that the tool returns a one-time download link for a specific audio track, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_catalog' and '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?

It advises using 'list_catalog' to obtain track IDs and mentions the download link's 15-minute validity, providing clear usage context without explicit 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?

The description discloses it is paid ($0.10) and educational (not medical advice), which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not specify read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description partially fulfills 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?

Single sentence covering cost, content, author, and disclaimer. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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 output schema, the description tells what the tool returns (a guide) but omits the return format (e.g., text/JSON). It adequately covers cost and disclaimer, but slightly incomplete regarding output structure.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no constraints. The description adds context about the fixed output (complete guide), exceeding the baseline expectation for a paramless tool.

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 a specific guide ('The Birth Partner's Role') by a named author, with a paid cost. It differentiates from siblings 'get_audio' (audio) and 'list_catalog' (listing) by focusing on a detailed guide resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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 behavioral traits. It only mentions 'FREE' (likely indicating no cost) but fails to describe whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or how the catalog is returned. The agent is left guessing about error handling or pagination.

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 but slightly long sentence. It is front-loaded with 'FREE' and states the purpose and usage. It could be more concise by splitting into two sentences, but overall it is well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description provides enough context: it is a catalog listing before retrieval. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of IDs or names), which would enhance completeness.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description need not add parameter details. It does provide useful context about the content of the catalog, which helps the agent understand what will be listed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 that the tool lists a catalog of certified birth-preparation and hypnobirthing content, specifying the types (guides, audio) and languages. It also explicitly mentions usage before get_guide/get_audio, distinguishing it from 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 provides clear context: 'Use before get_guide / get_audio.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to its siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, but the instruction is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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