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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying API route (GET /api/v1/get_feeding_info), with no mention of permissions, error behavior, or empty-result handling — minimal 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned field categories. The trailing API-route sentence is mildly superfluous for an agent but is short and non-disruptive.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and the '(food, amounts, schedule)' parenthetical partially compensates for the missing output schema by hinting at return contents. However, the exact response structure, pagination, and null/empty cases remain undisclosed.

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% for the single animal_id parameter, so the schema already documents it ('Animal (pet) id.'). The phrase 'of one animal' confirms but adds no new meaning about format or constraints, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does 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 and resource ('Get the feeding information of one animal') and enumerates the content returned (food, amounts, schedule). The resource is distinct enough from sibling lookups like get_animal_immunizations or get_animal_medications that an agent can route correctly without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The scope ('one animal') implies it is a single-record lookup, but nothing states when an agent should call this versus another animal-info sibling.

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