due_date_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe key behaviors such as how multiple parameters interact (e.g., if both last_period and conception are provided), what happens with missing inputs, or what specific milestones are returned. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond parameter descriptions.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence summarizing the purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure is clear and easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is mostly sufficient. It defines inputs clearly. However, it could be improved by noting that the due date calculation follows a standard rule (e.g., Naegele's rule) or by mentioning the return structure. Despite this, the presence of an output schema partially reduces the need for return value documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'First day of last menstrual period (ISO date)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. However, the explanations are minimal and lack detail on formatting constraints or edge cases.

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 calculates 'estimated due date and pregnancy milestones,' which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like ovulation_calc or calculate_age, as it focuses on pregnancy due dates and milestones.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the parameter list and title imply its use for pregnancy due dates, providing implied context but no exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.

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