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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the output is Wikidata breed ids usable as a cross-tool key — important since no output schema exists. It omits no-match/failure behavior and any rate or length 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action, input examples, output type, and downstream use all fit compactly.

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?

Covers the input concept and the return type, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, for a 2-parameter tool with a fully undocumented enum parameter and no guidance on unresolved names or species scoping, an agent is left guessing on important cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly characterizes 'text' as a breed name in any language, but never mentions the 'species' parameter or its 8-value enum (Dog, Cat, Rabbit, ...), which is a significant omission for disambiguating names like 'Pig' or 'Bird'.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve/turn) and resource (breed name in any language) with concrete multilingual examples (貴賓犬, pit bull, perro salchicha, 시바견) and names the output artifact (Wikidata breed ids). It is clearly distinct from siblings like resolve_place or find_pets.

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?

Gives explicit downstream context — pass the ids to find_pets as breed, or use them to compare listings across countries. That is clear when-to-use guidance tied to a named sibling, though it never states when not to use it (e.g. when a raw name string is already accepted).

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