Answer family date question

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety attributes. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., return format, limitations, knowledge source), but given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, includes a relevant example, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 has one simple parameter and no output schema. The description combined with the schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. It does not explicitly describe return values, but the tool name and purpose make this obvious.

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% and the single parameter 'question' is described as 'Natural language question about family dates'. The description repeats this concept and adds an example, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: answering natural language questions about family dates, with a concrete example ('When is mom's birthday?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific data (e.g., get_upcoming_family_dates) rather than interpret arbitrary questions.

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 usage for natural language date questions and provides a clear example. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to invoke this tool versus sibling tools.

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