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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the schema by instructing the agent to read the pet's `status` before offering it and to check each `health_conditions` status before discussing health, which prevents misinterpretation of the data.

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 concise and well-ordered: first it states what the tool returns, then what input it accepts, and finally the critical reading instructions. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, annotations, and a clear workflow reference, the description covers all necessary aspects. It explains the input source, the content scope, and the important status-reading behavior, so an agent can invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents `pet_ref` as the short pet code or record identifier. The description adds marginal context by specifying that the code may come from a link or from the pet search results, but it does not substantially expand on the schema's meaning.

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 ('ficha completa de um pet') and the specific information it returns: health, care, coexistence, and how to contact the NGO. It also distinguishes itself from the search flow by stating that it accepts the short code from a link or the id returned by the pet search, making it easy to tell apart from search_pets and get_rescuer_details.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after obtaining a pet reference from a link or from the pet search, instead of searching again. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is strongly implied.

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