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 excellently. It discloses the $0.05 x402 payment requirement, the source-linked and date-verified nature of results, the exact return fields, and the error condition when no verified entry matches.

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 dense but every segment earns its place: payment, scope, example topics, parameter usage, return fields, and error behavior. Key constraints are front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 fully enumerates the return payload: id, topic, question, answer, source name/URL, verified date, and verification block. Both optional parameters are explained, the payment model is disclosed, and failure behavior is stated. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by illustrating example keyword values like 'leave', 'kraamzorg', and 'GYED', and by clarifying that country is optional and omitting it searches both countries.

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 and resource: returns a single source-linked, date-verified fact about maternity systems in the Netherlands or Hungary. It names concrete topics and examples, making it clearly distinct from the sibling tools like ask or get_affirmations.

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 clear usage instructions: set 'country' to 'nl' or 'hu' and 'topic' to keywords, and notes that omitting country searches both. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but for this self-contained factual lookup tool the guidance is strong.

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