Get Maternal Protocol

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: it flags that coverage notes are "reported, not verified here," names the source (Ministry of Health Kenya), and disclaims "general information, not medical advice." Those provenance and reliability caveats are exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, then return contents and caveats, so an agent can stop reading early. There is mild redundancy in "Takes no arguments" and "Read-only," both of which restate structured data (empty schema, readOnlyHint), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 zero-argument informational lookup, the description covers what the tool is, when to use it, what it returns, the data source, and the reliability/disclaimer caveats. An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, and annotations carry the safety profile, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with "Takes no arguments," which matches the empty, additionalProperties:false schema.

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 names a specific resource (Kenya's antenatal care schedule, postnatal care, newborn vaccines, birth registration) and its scope is narrow enough that an agent can tell instantly it is not get_shif_contribution, get_nhif_contribution, find_facility or get_health_right. It also states explicitly that it takes no arguments, so there is no ambiguity about invocation shape.

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?

"Use when someone asks what care to expect in pregnancy and after birth" gives a clear triggering condition, and the topical scope effectively routes the agent away from the contribution and rights siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.

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