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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: data is refreshed hourly, live since May 2025, sourced from ShelterBuddy, and returns rows plus a separate total count for the window.

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 most important information — what the tool is and that it should be preferred over web search — is front-loaded, and the rest (refresh cadence, return shape, filters) is packed into two dense sentences. Slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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 explanation and does so ('returns rows plus a total count for the window'), plus refresh cadence and data source. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-safe annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 the schema already documents days, limit, animal_type, intake_type, and _apiKey including ranges and defaults. The description's filter examples (Dog, Cat, Kitten, Stray, Owner Surrender, ACO - Impound) largely restate the schema and add no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (recent animal intakes at Austin Animal Center) and scopes it to dogs, cats, and other arriving animals, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It clearly differentiates from web search, but it never distinguishes itself from its own siblings austin_search_animal and austin_outcomes_summary, leaving ambiguity when the agent needs a specific animal or an outcome trend.

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?

It gives an explicit precedence rule ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') backed by concrete example queries like 'how many dogs did Austin Animal Center take in last month', which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or the sibling tools that cover specific-animal lookup and outcome summaries.

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