readiness_questions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description adds useful content-level context by naming the screening items, wellness disclaimer, and red-flag notice. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 short and gets straight to the content of the tool with no filler. It is somewhat telegraphic because it is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, but it remains concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is simple, has full parameter documentation in the schema, has an output schema, and carries a readOnlyHint, so much of the needed context is already provided elsewhere. Still, the description does not explicitly state what action the tool performs or when it should be used, leaving a moderate gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, locale, is already documented with the allowed values 'en' or 'es-ES'. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema already covers them.

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 resource: generic pre-activity screening items, the wellness disclaimer, and the red-flag notice. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves,' and it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description loosely imply pre-activity screening, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusionary condition.

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