list_identifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific identifier categories returned, which gives some sense of output content, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, ordering, handling of missing animals, or whether only current or historical identifiers are shown. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that leads with the action 'List' and immediately specifies the resource. The parenthetical list of identifier types is informative without adding bulk. There is no wasted words or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, read-only, no output schema), and the description covers the core action. However, it does not state the return format or any special edge-case behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned that a list of identifiers is returned. It is functional but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both animal_id and farm_id. The description's phrase 'for a given animal' implicitly references animal_id but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or augment it.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('identifiers'), and scope ('for a given animal'), while enumerating the identifier types (tags, names, EID, brand, tattoo). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_identifier, remove_identifier, and find_animal_by_identifier, making the purpose instantly clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool to retrieve identifiers for a known animal, nor does it contrast with find_animal_by_identifier (which searches by identifier) or list_animals (which lists all animals). An agent must infer usage from the verb and resource.

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