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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response carries current location and custom fields — useful return-content context that annotations don't supply. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. unknown id).

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?

Two compact sentences with the result content front-loaded. The raw endpoint path is mildly redundant but gives useful API mapping and costs little.

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?

A one-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose description states what comes back despite there being no output schema. Only missing piece is error/not-found behavior, which is minor here.

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% and the single animal_id parameter is documented with pattern/length constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by id'; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('One animal by id') and names the returned payload scope (current location, custom fields), which cleanly separates it from farmbrite_list_animals. It never explicitly names the list sibling, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 implied by 'one animal by id' — fetch when you have an id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or guidance pointing to farmbrite_list_animals for discovering ids, which is the main lookup alternative an agent would need.

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