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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the substantive content of the response (hold time, day frequency, night trips, sample day with clock times) and discloses sourcing and a scope disclaimer. It does not specify exact output structure, but that is minor given the safety profile is covered.

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?

Purpose and outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage cases and the scope disclaimer after. It is on the long side and the second sentence packs use cases, unit conversion, sourcing and exclusions together, but every clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing what comes back (hold duration, daytime frequency, night-trip guidance, timed sample day) and sets expectations about sourcing and non-veterinary scope. An agent has enough to select and call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real interpretive value beyond the schema: it clarifies that age is in weeks, notes that 1 month is about 4.3 weeks, and restates the 8–52 week bound. It says nothing extra about wake/bedtime/language, which the schema already documents well.

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 ('Makes a potty schedule for a puppy aged 8 to 52 weeks') and enumerates the outputs (hold time, daytime frequency, night trips, sample day). It is plainly distinct from the sibling calculate_puppy_sleep_needs, which concerns sleep rather than house-training.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering questions ('how often to take a puppy out to pee, puppy potty or house-training schedules, and night-time potty trips') and gives a clear exclusion ('not for adult dogs' medical problems such as accidents, diarrhoea or frequent urination'). The only gap is that it doesn't name the sibling tool as the alternative for sleep questions.

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