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

The description adds context about the data content beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, detailing the grade, rationale, diseases, and tests. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as data freshness, response format, or any potential limitations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (one in English, one in German) that pack all essential information. No filler words, and front-loaded with the most critical detail (the grade and tests).

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return values well (grade, rationale, diseases, tests). It could be more explicit about the response structure, but it sufficiently conveys what the tool returns for its intended use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the 'breed_slug' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it should come from 'search_breeds'). No additional constraints or formats are described.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns a breed health profile including an S–E grade, rationale, hereditary diseases, and required health tests. The resource ('breed health profile') and the action ('get') are specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'search_breeds'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly assumes the user has a breed slug (likely from 'search_breeds'), but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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