query_womens_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns a pregnancy tracking summary or menstrual cycle data. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, user-specific scoping, or error handling. The added value is moderate.

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?

Three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and a bullet-style list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it creates ambiguity by implying pregnancy does not use date parameters while the schema allows them for all data types. This partial incompleteness reduces agent confidence.

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 100%, but the description adds semantic grouping: it associates date/range with menstrual data and implies pregnancy uses a summary (though schema still allows date params for pregnancy). This context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond raw schema definitions.

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 queries women's health data and explicitly lists two data types (pregnancy and menstrual) with brief explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_health_summary or log_health_data by focusing on specialized reproductive health metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that query_health_summary may be more appropriate for general health queries. The description provides context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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