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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: found pets are announced for owners first, not adoptable yet, excluded via found=exclude, and the server resolves place against its own table. It doesn't cover pagination or rate limits, but it does meaningfully exceed the annotation baseline.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the description is a single dense, run-on paragraph stringing together many clauses. It is information-rich but not well structured; readers must parse parentheses and semicolons to extract semantics. Every clause is useful, but the packaging is heavy for a description field.

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 22 params, no required params, no output schema, and 68% schema coverage, the description does substantial work covering the multi-language, found-pet, and place-resolution nuances. It states the return shape ('names, short facts, distance, the rescue and a link'), which is valuable absent an output schema. It is largely complete, though some param behaviors (sort default, facets, limit) go unmentioned.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for several parameters: found, q, near, km/miles, photo, and the Taiwan/place handling. Schema coverage is 68%, not full, so the description compensates for the q filter vocabulary, multi-language support, and the place resolution behavior. Some parameters (sort, facets, limit) aren't explained, keeping it from 5.

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+resource ('Search adoptable pets at rescues and shelters') and enumerates the rich filtering surface. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_by_description (free text) and show_pets by describing the multi-faceted search. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings or their boundaries, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

It explains what 'found' means and how to exclude it, which is genuine usage guidance for one parameter. But it never says when to choose find_pets over search_by_description, show_pets, or similar_pets, nor does it state prerequisites or when-not-to-use. Usage context is implied by the capability list, not explicit.

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