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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does this excellently. It discloses the $0.10 x402 payment side effect, the fallback behavior for omitted/unmatched stages, the default language, and the verification block — all beyond what the schema reveals. It even flags the likely side effect of a paid HTTP 402 flow.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the paid call warning, the stage semantics, and the return shape. It is front-loaded with the most operationally important fact (cost) and avoids filler or repetition of the name.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the payment side effect, parameter values, defaults, fallback behavior, and returned fields. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly without inspecting further.

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 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'identity' stage as 'matrescence / becoming-a-mother' and by explicitly stating the default/omitted behavior for both 'stage' and 'lang', which is not fully encoded in the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('practitioner-written positive affirmations') and states the matching criterion (pregnancy or postpartum stage). It also names the exact parameter values, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_stage_guidance or get_technique.

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 conveys when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs affirmations for a specific pregnancy or postpartum stage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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