HerStack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: routing to a primary cluster, potentially a secondary one, and returning recommendations. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the output. Every phrase contributes useful information, with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with one well-defined enum parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, how it behaves, and what it returns. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%: the 'concern' parameter is fully described with an enum and an explanation ('The reader's primary concern.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Route') with a clear resource ('a reader concern') and states the outcome: returning the cluster's recommendations. It is distinct from the sibling tools because it focuses on assessing and routing concerns rather than retrieving cluster briefs or recommending supplements.

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 its usage context—when a reader concern needs to be assessed and routed to a HerStack cluster. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from the sibling tools get_cluster_brief and recommend_supplements.

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 the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add useful behavioral context. It does so by detailing what the brief contains and noting that citation provenance is carried as source labels, which informs the agent about the output structure.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the core definition ('editorial brief') and then lists contents, keeping it compact. The parenthetical about perimenopause is slightly extraneous but still relevant to the FAQ content.

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 only one parameter, high schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description supplies sufficient context about the return value's contents, including citation provenance. It does not specify return formatting or error behavior, but those are not critical for this low-complexity retrieval 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 schema already documents the only parameter 'cluster' fully with a description ('Cluster slug to summarise') and an enum of valid values. The tool description adds no extra semantics for the parameter, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('editorial brief for a HerStack cluster') and enumerates its contents: framing, research findings, evidence table, brand criteria, and FAQ. It is distinct from sibling tools like assess_concern and recommend_supplements, which focus on other actions.

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 by listing the brief's contents, so an agent can infer it is for retrieving editorial cluster briefs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over assess_concern or recommend_supplements, nor give exclusions or alternative routing.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the output (formulation rationale, authorised health claim or research-context note) and the either/or input constraint, but it does not explain edge cases such as providing both parameters or neither.

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 deliverable and its content components are front-loaded, and the input instruction follows immediately. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool is simple and well-covered by enums and annotations, and the description explains the output content. However, the absence of required parameters combined with the 'Provide either' instruction creates ambiguity about what happens if both are supplied or neither is supplied, and this is not resolved anywhere in the structured fields.

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 fully documented via enums and descriptions. The description adds the 'either cluster or concern' relationship, which is valuable, but the schema already carries the semantic weight and the description does not substantially extend parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as providing HerStack's named Solgar UK supplement recommendations for a women's-health concern or cluster, with formulation rationale and authorised health claim. This specifies the resource and purpose, distinguishing it from the sibling tools in substance, though it does not explicitly name or compare against them.

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 only usage guidance is 'Provide either cluster or concern', which tells the agent what input to supply but gives no context on when to choose this tool over assess_concern or get_cluster_brief. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues.

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