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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default result-filtering behavior (active-status only) and the underlying endpoint, which an agent could otherwise get wrong. Return shape and pagination are left 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: field list first, then the important default-filtering caveat, then the endpoint. Nothing is wasted and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 9 params, nested filters, no output schema, and only a single sentinel status enum documented, the field enumeration in the description usefully substitutes for a return schema. It stops short of explaining pagination or the total/next_page shape an agent needs to iterate pages.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description's only parameter-relevant statement — that status filtering is needed to see Sold/Deceased/etc. — is already documented verbatim in the status parameter description. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 ("List") and resource ("livestock records") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns versus farmbrite_get_animal. It never explicitly routes the agent to a sibling (e.g. get_animal for a single record), which keeps it just short of 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?

The critical usage rule is spelled out: Farmbrite returns only active-status animals unless you pass a status filter, with the full set of non-active statuses named. That's genuinely actionable context. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives for other listing needs.

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