PetCare Atlas

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower — yet the description adds substantial non-obvious context: geocoding is done via postcodes.io with 'nothing else leaves PetCare Atlas', listings come from public professional registers, and 'Nobody pays to be listed or ranked.' Provenance, privacy and neutrality disclosures are exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then emergency behavior, then returned fields, then provenance — a sensible priority order. The closing trust statements ('Nobody pays to be listed or ranked', 'No clinical advice') are slightly padded but still relevant to how an agent should present results.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields (name, id, type, town, postcode, distance, phone, accreditations, page link) and covers emergency mode and data provenance. The only meaningful gap is the absence of routing guidance toward provider_details for deeper single-provider lookups.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that results are ordered 'nearest first' and that the place input is resolved to coordinates via a public postcode service, which clarifies how the required 'place' parameter is interpreted.

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 with scope: 'Find UK vet practices, vet hospitals, specialists and accredited practitioners ... near a place, nearest first.' An agent can immediately tell this is a proximity search over a provider directory. It never names the sibling it is not (e.g. provider_details for a single listing), so sibling differentiation is only implied by the summary-return sentence.

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?

Gives clear context for the emergency variant ('An emergency search starts with a fixed safety line and lists RCVS-accredited emergency service clinics and the nearest vets') and a scope boundary ('No clinical advice'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative such as provider_details for full profile lookup, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: retailer accreditation scope, pack-by-pack organization, ordering by what the owner pays, inclusion of price-read dates, and prescription flagging.

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?

The description is around 70 words and every sentence carries functional information; examples and boundary statements are useful rather than redundant. It is slightly dense and the first sentence is a long noun phrase, but it is still easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the result contains (retailers, links, dates, pack-level prices), how results are sorted, and what the tool will not do. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 for the single 'name' parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete example values ('Bravecto' or 'Apoquel 16 mg') and by reinforcing that the search key is the medicine's name.

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?

The description names the exact resource (prices for a named veterinary medicine from VMD-accredited UK online retailers) and the output (retailer links, pack-level prices, read date). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like procedure_prices and provider_details, whose domains are procedures and provider details, not medicine prices.

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?

It tells the agent how to call it ('Search by the medicine's name') and gives examples, and it excludes recommendation requests ('Does not suggest medicines or doses'). However, it never names sibling tools or states when to choose this over procedure_prices or provider_details, so routing guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it reports the middle half of published prices, how many practices publish a price, when the data was read, and falls back to a researched guide range when too few practices publish. The explicit 'It is not a quote' caveat further prevents misuse.

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?

The description is compact and well organized: it defines the subject, states the output composition, notes the fallback behavior, and closes with a purpose/caveat sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the key output detail 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 no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the agent can expect: the middle half, the count of publishing practices, the read date, or a guide range. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how the optional 'place' parameter changes the result, though the schema covers that to some degree. Overall it is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds helpful examples of procedure values but does not meaningfully elaborate on the optional 'place' parameter. This matches the baseline 3 for a well-covered schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as prices UK vet practices publish for common procedures, with concrete examples (consultation, vaccination, neutering, etc.), and explains what it returns (middle half of published prices, count of practices, read date). The title and examples distinguish it from the sibling medicine_prices, which is about medication rather than procedures.

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 implies usage as a planning aid for owners ('A guide to help an owner plan') and explicitly says it is not a quote, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like medicine_prices or provider_details. There is useful context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying provenance (prices 'with its source and the date it was read') and a clear scope boundary ('No clinical advice'). This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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?

The description is one information-dense sentence followed by a short scope boundary. It front-loads the core action and then lists the contents in a readable order, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it does so thoroughly: address, phone, website, accreditations, services, ownership, and prices with source/date. Combined with the single self-describing parameter and rich annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema already covers it fully with a clear example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter information, but none is needed.

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?

The description opens with 'One PetCare Atlas listing in full', making the verb (retrieve a single full listing) and resource (PetCare Atlas listing) explicit. It then enumerates the exact content areas, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tool find_providers and the targeted medicine/procedure price tools.

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 phrase 'One ... listing in full' and the schema note that id comes from search results convey when to use this tool: after locating a single provider. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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