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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the engine answers only from cited Sniff atoms, returns abstained:true if lacking data, never guesses, and is educational not diagnostic. These are key behavioral traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, providing scope, behavior, output format, and usage guidance. Minimal 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?

Given the complexity of a natural-language QA tool and the presence of an output schema, the description completely covers required information: topics, behavior, output format, and usage boundaries. No gaps are evident.

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 only parameter is 'question' with 0% schema description coverage, but the tool description extensively explains what kind of questions are valid: natural-language canine-genetics questions covering a wide range of topics. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 states the tool answers natural-language canine-genetics questions with grounded, cited answers. It lists specific topics covered (inherited diseases, breed risks, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing structured lookups to variant/breed/gene 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 description provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS for any 'what is X / does breed Y get Z / human equivalent of W' question; use the variant/breed/gene tools for structured lookups by identifier.' This clearly tells when to use the tool and when to use alternatives.

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