get_screening_recommendations

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the age-gate behavior ('you don't need this yet'), the enumerated status values, and a hard precondition that the profile must be filled in.

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 tight sentences with the resource statement front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. The parenthetical age-gate phrase is slightly idiomatic but conveys real information, so little is wasted.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need only frame the tool and its precondition, which it does. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits any guidance on what to do when the profile is unfilled.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of statuses describes output semantics rather than inputs, which is harmless but not a parameter clarification.

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?

Names a specific resource ('screening calendar') scoped to the user's profile, with the caveat that it is age-gated. It is clearly distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings like get_health_summary or query_observations, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of 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 use case (viewing a screening calendar) is implied, and one prerequisite is stated: 'Requires a filled-in profile.' However no alternatives or when-not conditions are given, e.g. nothing says what to call instead if the profile is empty (set_profile is a sibling).

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