list_animals

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral nuance: default results are current animals, and ALL reveals historical/nondeleted profiles, which is useful beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place; the core operation is named first, pagination second, and the status-selection behavior follows naturally.

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 read-only list with four optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, pagination, and the status distinction. It omits explicit routing to alternatives, but the schema closes most remaining gaps.

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%, so the schema carries the technical definitions. The description enriches the inventory_status parameter by framing CURRENT as 'current' and ALL as 'historical profiles,' which clarifies the enum's purpose.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation and resource: listing animals on the farm. The 'current' vs historical distinction via inventory status separates it from generic list 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?

Implies this tool is for current farm animals and can be pointed at historical profiles via ALL, but it names no alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use. An agent must infer that list_groups/list_records are the siblings to choose instead.

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