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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Adds a record each time', making it explicit that repeat calls create duplicate records rather than upserting — a genuinely useful clarification. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens if no measurement field is supplied.

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 line, front-loaded with the WRITE classification followed by resource, accepted fields, append semantics, and endpoint. No filler; the endpoint at the end is a small but harmless identifier aid.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters, no output schema and 43% schema coverage, the description covers the field vocabulary but leaves gaps an agent would want: unit expectations for weight/height/temp, whether 'date' defaults to today, and what comes back after a successful write.

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 only 43%, but the description compensates partially by naming the five measurement fields, which maps to fec, temp, height, weight and condition_score. The 'date' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description (no format or default), and nothing says at least one measurement value must be provided.

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 ('record a measurement for one animal') and enumerates exactly which measurement kinds are accepted (weight, height, temperature, condition score, fecal egg count). This clearly separates it from farmbrite_create_animal and the read-side farmbrite_list_animal_measurements.

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?

'WRITE:' and 'Adds a record each time' imply this is for appending new measurements to an existing animal rather than correcting one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that the animal must already exist, and no pointer to farmbrite_list_animal_measurements for verification or to farmbrite_update_animal for corrections.

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