List age bands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered structurally. The description's added value is disclosing the shape of the returned data (four fixed entries, each with ranges, promises, and level mapping), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not add ordering, count stability, or pagination context beyond that.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most important fact (there are exactly four bands) is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, which reads slightly like a label, but nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the full safety profile, the only real burden is describing what comes back — and the description does that by listing the three fields per band. The tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing; only the relationship to list_by_age_band is left implicit.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and correctly so for a static reference listing.

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 the exact resource (the four WisdomForge age bands) and enumerates what each entry contains: age ranges, promises, and booklet level mapping. That is enough for an agent to know this is a taxonomy lookup. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling list_by_age_band, which is the one ambiguity an agent would face.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, even though list_by_age_band and list_subjects sit right beside it. The usage is implied by the content: call this to obtain the canonical band taxonomy (e.g. to resolve an age range to a band label) before calling list_by_age_band. Implied but not stated.

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