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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so a safe pure-computation profile is established without the description. The description adds that the result is total mg and tablet count, but says nothing beyond that — no note on clinical disclaimer, rounding, or input validity (e.g., positive values only).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and inputs. The trailing pointer to list_bundles and 'animaux' calculators adds little routing value and slightly dilutes the focus, but the text is otherwise tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be re-explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving concentration_mg_per_ml undocumented makes the definition only minimally complete; the sibling pointer is the only extra context offered.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It names only two of the three parameters ('weight kg, dose mg/kg') and never mentions concentration_mg_per_ml, which is precisely the optional input that presumably drives the tablet/liquid conversion — a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to supply it.

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 ('Compute veterinary medication dose') plus the governing formula (mg/kg), which cleanly separates it from siblings like calculate_pet_bmi, calculate_pet_food_portion, and calculate_pet_age. An agent can select it without opening any 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?

'Use for medication administration' gives the implied context but names no alternatives and states no when-not conditions (e.g., compounded liquid vs tablet, or how it differs from pet_food_portion). Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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