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), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ranked most popular first, query matching accepts German or English with optional umlauts, and it returns breed slugs, a photo, and the honestdog.de page URL. With no output schema, that return-value disclosure is exactly the missing context.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and examples, then the mechanics and return values. The German sentence is a full translation of the English one, which is redundant for an agent, but the overall length is proportionate to the information delivered.

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?

For a read-only, no-required-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the searchable dimensions, ranking, and the shape of the return (slugs keyed to the other tools, photo, URL). Only the limit behavior and any zero-result handling are unaddressed.

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 75% and already documents query language/umlaut handling, size class, and the S–E grade scale. The description restates these filter dimensions but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the limit parameter — so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Searches HonestDog's breed catalogue') plus the fields searched (name, size, health grade) and the result ordering. An agent can distinguish it from search_breeders and search_shelter_dogs, which are the sibling searches over different corpora.

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 a clear trigger context ('when someone is choosing a dog breed or asks which breeds are healthy') with concrete example queries in two languages. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name the sibling tool to prefer for breeder/shelter lookups, so it stops short of 5.

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