find_animal_by_identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the key create-on-miss side effect but omits details about farm context requirements, permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior when no animal is found and creation is not possible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's core action, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not specify what the tool returns, how creation side effects are indicated, or what happens when no matching animal exists, leaving a critical behavioral gap for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the expansion of the EID acronym and does not enrich the meaning of farm_id or provide any detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find or create') with a clear resource ('animal') and a unique lookup key ('EID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_animal and create_animal, which handle retrieval and creation as separate operations.

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 phrase 'Find or create an animal by EID' implies the tool is appropriate when you need to locate an animal by its electronic ID and create it if absent. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_animal or create_animal, or when not to use it.

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