Pawlisty Pet Listings

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists breeds with links and availability, and returns an ID, implying read-only behavior. No hidden side effects, but lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with main action, then usage guidance, then return value. 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?

Tool is simple (list breeds) with 3 optional params and no output schema. Description covers purpose, usage, and return value linkage to sibling tool. Lacks details on pagination/limit behavior and precise semantics of species enum.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The description text does not explain the other two parameters (limit, species), leaving their semantics unclear. The tool description adds minimal value beyond 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 the tool lists pet breeds, with links to guides and availability, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_pet_listings by returning a breed ID usable in that tool.

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 when-to-use advice ('when comparing breeds or researching before buying') and hints at workflow (breed id usable in search_pet_listings), but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions return type (summary and link) without disclosing any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a read-only information tool, basic transparency is present but minimal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous 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?

Tool is simple with one parameter; description covers return values and intended use. Sibling tools are distinct, providing sufficient context. Minor lack: no mention of expected response format, but acceptable for a simple guide retrieval.

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 includes a clear description for the topic parameter. The description reiterates the 'omit to return all' behavior already present in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond output information.

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?

Description clearly states it returns buyer-safety guidance for pet scams and safe adoption, distinct from sibling tools that deal with breed browsing and listings. Verb and resource are specific.

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 states use case for safety questions ('how do I safely buy/adopt' or 'is this a scam'), providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools imply alternative uses.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, nor mention authentication requirements or whether the response includes all fields. Adequate but could be more precise.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and usage context, second adds a practical limitation. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use, and a key limitation. Could hint at the structure of 'full details' but is sufficient as is.

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?

Only one parameter with schema description 'Listing id.' Description adds little beyond the schema (just 'by id'). With 100% schema coverage, 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?

Clearly states the action ('Get full details'), the resource ('Pawlisty listing'), and the identifier ('by id'). Distinguishes from sibling 'search_pet_listings' which searches instead of retrieving a single record.

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 tells when to use this tool ('after search_pet_listings when the user wants more on a specific pet') and what not to expect ('To contact the seller the user must visit the listing page').

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that results are 'current listings with links to pawlisty.com,' implying a read-only search operation, and mentions filtering. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or explicit read-only status, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a complex search tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, and it efficiently covers the key use case and output. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 19 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sparse. It gives the core purpose and output but lacks guidance on complex usage, such as how filters combine, the significance of location fallback, or the role of browse_breeds. The schema offers some help, but overall the description is only minimally adequate for such a complex tool.

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 only 42%, and the description compensates only partially by listing filter categories (species, breed, location, price, care attributes). It does not explain the meaning of specific parameters like limit, sort, distance_km, or gender, which are undocumented in the schema. The added value is modest but not sufficient for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('live pet listings'), and the platform ('Pawlisty'). It explicitly mentions the purpose (buy/adopt) and the filtering dimensions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the search tool, while browse_breeds is for disambiguation and get_pet_listing for a single listing.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use whenever a user wants to buy or adopt a pet or asks what is available.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, leaving a small gap in explicit exclusion guidance.

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