list_animals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('read path') but fails to mention pagination, default behavior (e.g., if limit is omitted), or authentication requirements. The added value beyond the name is minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Inventory animals'). Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details about the return format and parameter usage. It is a baseline complete for a simple list tool but could be improved.

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 0%, but the description does not compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter. It does not mention any parameter details, leaving the parameter semantics undocumented. The description adds no value over the schema for understanding parameter meaning.

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 lists animals ('Inventory animals') and specifies the context ('on the operator's ezyVet account'). It also distinguishes itself as a standard read path for triaging cases, differentiating from siblings like get_animal (single animal) and create_appointment (different resource).

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 mentions it is the 'Standard read path for triaging cases,' providing some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search functions. The guidance is implied but lacks direct exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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