Ответ на вопрос о здоровье и уходе за питомцем из базы 3 700+ вопросов-ответов, вычитанных ветеринарными врачами сети БиоВет, со ссылкой на статью-источник. Справка, не замена осмотра.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Вопрос по-русски: «почему кошка чихает», «сколько спит щенок» |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that answers come from a vet-reviewed database, includes a source-article link, and explicitly limits the tool to informational purposes ('not a substitute for an examination'). This gives an agent a clear behavioral model without reciting 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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function, data source, and output; the second adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place.
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 Q&A tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input domain, the source and vetting of content, the presence of a source link in the response, and the non-diagnostic nature. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 schema already provides a clear Russian-language question description with examples. The tool description adds only general scope ('health and care'), which supports the parameter's intent but does not materially extend beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it answers pet health/care questions from a curated database of 3,700+ Q&As. It also specifies the content source (veterinarian-reviewed BioVet network) and the output includes a source article link, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like book_visit, get_prices, or triage.
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 context: use it for pet health and care questions. It includes a useful caveat ('reference, not a substitute for examination'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools such as triage or food_check for overlapping topics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct task: clinic lookup, slot availability, booking, prices, general health Q&A, food safety, and urgency triage. The health-related tools (ask_vet_kb, food_check, triage) have clearly separated purposes in their descriptions, so agent misselection is unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (find_clinic, check_slots, book_visit, get_prices). food_check reverses the order and ask_vet_kb uses an abbreviation, creating minor inconsistencies, but the overall pattern is still readable and predictable.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a necessary function in the pet-care workflow. The set is neither bloated nor too thin for a veterinary clinic assistant.
The main workflows are complete: clinic discovery, appointment booking, price lookup, and health/triage information are all covered. Missing appointment cancellation or modification is a minor gap but does not break the core service.