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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it details that only public profile data and a URL are returned, contact happens externally, and Qualzucht breeds trigger a caution. No contradictions.

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 concise with two sentences in English and one in German. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The German sentence is redundant for an English-speaking agent but not overly harmful.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering options, edge case (Qualzucht), and contact flow. It lacks return format details (e.g., pagination) but provides enough for basic usage.

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 50% (only state and breed_slug have descriptions). The description mentions optional filtering by breed and location but does not elaborate on parameters like limit, city, or the relationship to search_breeds. It meets the baseline but adds limited semantic value beyond the schema.

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 vetted, APPROVED dog breeders by breed and location, distinguishing it from siblings like search_breeds and search_shelter_dogs. It specifies the source (HonestDog's directory) and the intent (find approved breeders).

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 provides guidance by noting that for Qualzucht breeds a caution is returned instead of results, and that contact occurs via the profile URL, not through the tool. It lacks explicit when-to-use vs. siblings, but sibling context supplements.

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