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

Discloses response behavior beyond annotations: respond based on the 'summary', show the 'url', and tell the user if no guide exists (empty list). These instructions add practical execution detail not found in readOnly/openWorld hints.

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 compact: two sentences cover what the tool does, when to use it, and how to handle responses. Every sentence adds value 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?

With a complete output schema, clear annotations, and a well-scoped description, all essential information is present. It even addresses edge-case behavior (empty list), making it fully contextual.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, and its description is thorough (free-text, examples, tolerates accents/typos). The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: accessing Adoteca guides on adoption, health, special care, and site usage. It distinguishes itself from pet-search tools by explicitly saying it's for questions that are not pet searches.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use para dúvidas que não são busca de pets' (use for doubts that are not pet searches). This differentiates the tool from sibling search_pets and offers clear usage context.

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