ntd_milestone_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether results are cached, how missing milestones are handled, or performance implications of filtering by many parameters. 'Aggregate' implies a read operation but is never explicitly stated.

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 succinct sentence that conveys the core function and filter dimensions. It is not overly verbose, but could be split into two sentences for better readability: one for the operation and one listing the filters.

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?

Given 5 fully optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when no filters are provided (potentially system-wide totals), nor does it describe the output format (a table, dictionary, or list). The tool is likely complex enough to warrant more detail.

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 0%, and the description only lists parameter names without any details on valid values, formats, or behavior when omitted. For example, 'year' could be a single year or range, and 'region' is ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 aggregates milestone completion rates as percentages of POs with each milestone recorded, and lists the available filters (donor, country, drug, region, year). This distinguishes it from siblings like ntd_get_po (single PO retrieval) and ntd_get_milestones (per-PO milestones), but could be more specific about the output granularity.

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 use for aggregate analysis across multiple dimensions, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus ntd_summary_stats (also aggregate) or ntd_list_values (filter discovery). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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