Find animal by identifier

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it creates an animal when no match exists, and it is deprecated. That create-on-miss side effect is the key trait an agent must know. It stops short of describing return format or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: deprecation status front-loaded, behavioral warning, then routing. No filler and the most decision-relevant information (deprecated, write-capable, use alternatives) leads.

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 deprecated, mutation-disguised-as-lookup tool, the definition covers status, side effect, and routing completely. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% across both parameters, so the schema already documents 'eid' and 'farm_id'. The description adds only the EID expansion ('Electronic ID'), which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find or create an animal by EID') and explicitly frames itself as a write-capable lookup rather than the read-only sibling. It contrasts itself against both 'lookup_animal_by_eid' and 'find_or_create_animal_by_eid', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('Never call it for a read-only identifier lookup') and names the correct alternative for each case ('lookup_animal_by_eid' for reads, 'find_or_create_animal_by_eid' for intentional creation). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that routing requires.

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