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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details: conversion factors for dogs by size and cats by age formula, determination of life stage, and care recommendations. These go beyond annotations by disclosing the conversion logic and output content.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides essential information. No wasted words.

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?

While the description mentions outputs (etapa de vida, recomendaciones de cuidado), it does not specify the exact format or structure of the output (e.g., JSON fields). Since no output schema exists, more detail would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the conversion formulas (e.g., 'primer año = 15 años humanos, segundo = 9, resto × 4' for cats) and specifying default dog size, which the schema lacks. This adds value 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?

The description clearly states 'Convierte la edad de un perro o gato a años humanos equivalentes y determina su etapa de vida con recomendaciones de cuidado.' This is a specific verb (convertir) and resource (edad mascota), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like calcular_edad which are generic age calculators.

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 implies usage for converting pet ages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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