Pawlisty Pet Listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only hint, destructive potential, side effects, rate limits, or whether links are fetched externally. Only states output format, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, providing use case, and clarifying output utility.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, usage, and output linkage. However, it lacks details on pagination (limit behavior), filtering mechanics (query matching), and species enumeration specifics, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to use optimally without additional context.

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% (query has minimal description). The tool description does not elaborate on limit, species, or query semantics beyond the schema. Although it mentions returning breed IDs, it adds no parameter-level guidance to compensate for low coverage.

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 'List pet breeds Pawlisty covers, with links to breed guides and current availability,' specifying a verb (list) and resource (pet breeds). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_buying_guide and search_pet_listings by focusing on breed overview and providing links.

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?

Includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use when comparing breeds or researching before buying.' Additionally, it notes that output breed IDs feed into search_pet_listings, aiding downstream selection. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given sibling names.

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, but description adequately discloses it returns a summary and a link. Could mention if guide is static or dynamic, but for a simple informational tool this is sufficient.

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 with no fluff. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does and when to use it.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return value, leaving no gaps.

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 a single enum parameter described. The description repeats the schema's param description verbatim, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns buyer-safety guidance on avoiding scams and FAQ, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_breeds or search_pet_listings that focus on listing browsing.

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 for any "how do I safely buy or adopt a pet" or "is this listing a scam" question,' giving clear when-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.

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, description adds some behavioral context: it returns full details and does not allow contacting seller. However, it doesn't disclose read-only status, auth requirements, or return format. Minimal extra value beyond stating purpose.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, when to use it, and a key limitation. No redundancy or extraneous text.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage context, and a behavioral limitation. Could be enhanced by hinting at what 'full details' includes, but still adequate.

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 one parameter (id) described as 'Listing id.' The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 action (get full details) and the resource (one Pawlisty listing by id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_pet_listings, which is for searching multiple listings.

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 instructs to use after search_pet_listings when user wants more on a specific pet, providing clear context. Also notes a limitation (contact seller requires visiting page). Lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but context is sufficient.

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 are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it returns 'current listings with links' but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authorization, or whether it is read-only/destructive. The description is insufficient for a tool with 19 parameters.

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 long, concise, and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 the complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not address response format, pagination (implied by limit parameter), or how to interpret results. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 42% schema description coverage, many parameters lack documentation. The description only broadly mentions filtering by species, breed, location, price, or care attributes, adding little beyond the schema's enums and descriptions. It does not explain parameter interactions or required combinations.

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 searches live pet listings for sale or adoption, and specifies use cases like buying/adopting or querying availability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_breeds and get_pet_listing by focusing on search and filtering.

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 says 'Use whenever a user wants to buy or adopt a pet or asks what is available', providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools for alternative use cases.

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