medical.pregnancy_weeks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the Naegele formula (LMP+280), clamping to 0-42 weeks, and that ultrasound-adjusted dates are ignored. Return of trimester is also 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then input format, then algorithm and edge-case bounds. Dense but every clause adds decision-relevant 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values; it covers inputs, formula, clamping behavior, and a key exclusion (no ultrasound adjustment). Complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it specifies lmp_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and explains reference_date's default-to-today behavior. Both parameters are effectively documented.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (gestational age and EDD) with the method source (LMP). No sibling in the medical.* namespace computes pregnancy dating, so it's clearly distinguishable.

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?

Implies use when dating a pregnancy from LMP and explicitly notes the limitation that ultrasound-adjusted EDD is not reflected, which guides correct selection. No explicit alternative tool named, so not a 5.

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