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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state this is a reference ('справочник БиоВет') proofread by doctors, implying a non-destructive lookup. It does not disclose what happens when the item is absent from the reference or what the response format looks like.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core question, names the pet species and resource types, and ends with the source-credibility claim. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 lookup, an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return behavior and not-found handling, which it would need to fully disclose given the low structured context.

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%: the product parameter already includes Russian examples like 'виноград', 'лилия', and 'сыр'. The description adds only marginal semantic context (the pet-species scope), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys what the tool answers: whether a product or houseplant is safe for a cat, dog, rodent, or bird, distinguishing it from siblings like book_visit and get_prices. The action verb is implicit ('Можно ли' question form implies checking), which keeps it just short of an explicit statement.

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?

When to use the tool is implied by the domain framing: when a user asks whether a pet can eat a product or plant. No explicit context, exclusions, or routing against the closest sibling (ask_vet_kb) is provided.

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