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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the upstream absence of a date filter, the page*limit<=2000 hard cap, the data source, and the fact that each row carries a signed report_pdf_url. It does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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 verb+resource, then illustrative queries, then behavior and caveats — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The four example queries are slightly list-heavy but each maps to a distinct parameter combination, so they earn their space.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating date, licensee/location, violation counts, teachable moments, and report_pdf_url. It also names the source system. It omits anything about result ordering or how to page past the 2000-row cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so 3 is the floor; the description pushes past it by explaining the upstream limitation that inspection_date is NOT a filter and must be applied to returned rows, and by routing citation/animal_category lookups to aphis_inspection_filter_options. That is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search USDA APHIS Animal Care inspection reports') and immediately scopes it ('the inspections behind Animal Welfare Act enforcement'). The four sample questions make the retrieval target concrete and distinguish it from aphis_licensee_search and aphis_inspection_filter_options without opening either schema.

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?

Supplies four realistic query shapes and states the supported narrowing dimensions (animal_category, cited regulation, certificate). It also flags the missing date axis and tells the agent how to work around it. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer aphis_licensee_search or aphis_inspection_filter_options instead.

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