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.