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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful framing that this is a coverage/reference lookup for a cost estimator, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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 tight sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and the purpose statement second. No redundant or filler text.

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 trivial one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers both what it returns and when to call it. A brief note on return shape (e.g. names only vs. breed objects) would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description restates it as an optional search filter, adding no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists dog breeds supported by the TheDogs.app pet insurance cost estimator'), plus the optional filter. The purpose is clear and distinct from siblings like get_breed_profile or compare_dog_breeds, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for disambiguation.

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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions: when the user asks which breeds are covered, or when a breed name fails to match. This is concrete when-to-use guidance, but it names no exclusions or sibling alternatives (e.g. vs. find_similar_breeds or match_dog_breeds).

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