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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It identifies the tool as a reference and implies a yes/no or informational answer, but it does not describe the response format, possible output types, or limitations such as unknown substances or emergency cases.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the core question, target species, accepted categories, concrete examples, and source authority with no filler. The structure is front-loaded and every clause adds selection-relevant information.

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 with no output schema, the description provides ample context: what inputs are accepted, for which animals, and that the data is doctor-reviewed. The only notable gap is the exact answer format, though 'можно ли...' strongly implies a yes/no verdict.

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?

The input schema already documents the single `product` parameter at 100% coverage with Russian categories and examples. The description largely repeats these and adds only marginal examples such as 'крысиный яд' and species scope, which is helpful but not a substantive semantic addition.

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 question-and-resource combination: whether a cat/dog/rodent/bird can consume a product, houseplant, human medicine, or household substance, backed by a veterinarian-checked handbook. This clearly separates it from scheduling, pricing, and clinic-location siblings, even though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when the agent needs a pet-safety verdict for a named substance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like ask_vet_kb or triage, nor does it state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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