petcremation

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: only *published* records are returned, implying unpublished listings behave differently. It says nothing about a not-found response for a missing or unpublished slug.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and the scoping constraint ('published', 'one', 'by its slug'). Nothing to trim.

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 simple single-record read with full annotations and a fully documented one-parameter schema and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the not-found/unpublished behavior, which matters because the description explicitly limits results to published records.

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%, with the slug pattern, length bounds, and a description already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the slug identifies a published record, not any new syntax or format detail.

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 (get), a single resource (one listing/pet crematory), and the lookup key (slug). The phrase 'one ... by its slug' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural siblings search_listings and list_places, but it never names an alternative. Minor friction from calling the resource 'pet crematory' while the tool is named get_listing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer that this is the single-record fetch and that search_listings is how a slug is discovered, but the description states none of that. Only implied usage at best.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it counts only 'published' entities (implying unpublished items are excluded) and discloses that a freshness timestamp is included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names concrete content the caller receives (counts of three entity types plus last-changed time).

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming the counts and the freshness field. It stops short of describing exact response shape or whether the last-changed value is global or per-entity, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% and the empty schema matches the description's implication of a global, unfiltered count.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely enumerated resource: counts of published pet crematories, places, and categories, plus the last-changed timestamp. This clearly separates it from the list_* and search_* siblings, which return records rather than aggregate counts.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for summary counts rather than enumerating records, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_listing or list_categories, nor any exclusions. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds the one piece of context the annotations cannot convey: that each category is returned with an aggregate count, which hints at the payload shape.

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?

A single 9-word sentence with the resource and the output content front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is 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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description does the minimal necessary work by telling the agent what each returned item contains. Sorting, pagination and result-size behavior are unspecified, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing the description needs to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filter semantics that do not exist.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('categories') and adds that each entry includes a pet crematory count, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_places or list_sources, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool such as get_stats or list_places. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the category-enumeration endpoint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the content scope (geographic entities filtered to those with pet crematories) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to convey what is being enumerated, which it does. It stops short of describing the return shape or whether the list is fixed or dynamic, which slightly limits an agent's expectations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a clearly defined resource (countries, regions and cities that have pet crematories), so the agent knows exactly what enumeration to expect. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_categories or search_listings beyond the 'list_' prefix, leaving the distinction to be inferred.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_categories, list_sources, or search_listings, and names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and the geographic scope.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds content-level context (each entry carries license and refresh metadata), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many sources exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb first, then the resource's defining detail, then the fields returned. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only enumeration with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what each source record actually contains (license, refresh). It is close to complete, missing only scale/ordering expectations.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly does not invent parameters that the empty schema would reject.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("sources") and further disambiguates by defining what a source is: the origin of pet crematory data, with license and refresh fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_stats or list_categories, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling listing tools (get_listing, list_places, search_listings) or any prerequisite. Usage is only inferable from the verb and resource, which is weak guidance for a tool in a crowded list-* family.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful qualifier, that only *published* crematories are searched, which is behavior beyond the annotations. Pagination and result-shape behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the subject of the search.

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 an 8-parameter tool with cursor pagination and no output schema, the one-line description is thin: it never mentions pagination, result ordering, or the published-only scope's implications. The rich schema compensates substantially, but the description itself is only barely adequate.

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 all 8 parameters with enum meaning, slug formats, and cursor semantics. The description's 'text, place and category' merely names the filter families already present in the schema, adding no new semantics. 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?

States a clear verb (Search) and resource (published pet crematories) plus the three filter axes (text, place, category). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_listing or list_places, leaving the search-vs-fetch distinction to be inferred.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the discovery tool and get_listing the detail tool from names alone; the description offers nothing on when this is preferred over listing places or categories.

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