PetCare Atlas

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 meaningful behavioral detail: emergency results start with a safety line, output includes specific fields, listings come from public professional registers, and ranking is not paid. It also adds a boundary ('No clinical advice') that an agent should know.

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 moderately sized but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by emergency behavior, return fields, source, and editorial boundary. Every sentence contributes, though a couple (source/no-pay/no-clinical-advice) could be considered optional for a terse definition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields and overall behavior. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has enough context to select and correctly invoke the tool for both normal and emergency searches.

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 each parameter already has a rich description, so the tool description is not required to add parameter-level detail. The description reinforces emergency behavior and place-based searching but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the resource ('UK vet practices, vet hospitals, specialists and accredited practitioners') with a clear scope ('near a place, nearest first'). This clearly separates it from siblings like provider_details, medicine_prices, and procedure_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?

The description gives clear context for when to call the tool: location-based provider searches, including an emergency variant with a fixed safety line. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the intended use is evident from the content.

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.