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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (only the authenticated user's pets) and the shape of the result fields, implying a safe read, but it says nothing about empty results, pagination, or auth/session prerequisites beyond the word 'autenticado'. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage hint. The field enumeration earns its place because no output schema exists, and there is no filler.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned fields and the scope. Minor gaps remain around empty-state behavior and whether callers need an established session, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but there is none to add.

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?

States a specific verb (Devuelve) plus the exact resource (los perros del usuario autenticado) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. The scope qualifier 'usuario autenticado' distinguishes it from catalog-style siblings like getBreeds, and the name/title pairing is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use context: selecting a dog while creating an order. That rules in the createOrder flow, but it gives no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer getBreeds or getMyOrders), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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