get_birth_history_settings

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 fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns 'zero-to-many planned birth windows,' which is useful context about the response shape. It doesn't disclose anything about permissions, defaults, or error behavior, but with strong annotations, a 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key behavioral detail about zero-to-many windows. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the sibling setter or any default behavior when farm_id is omitted, but the schema already notes the default.

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%, so the single parameter farm_id is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a read operation for producer-configured species gestation/age intervals and planned birth windows. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('birth history settings'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_birth_event or get_birth_source_evidence. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with its sibling set_birth_history_settings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 this is a read-only retrieval tool, and the annotations confirm it. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_birth_history_settings or get_birth_event. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's for fetching settings, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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