List identifiers

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower, but it still adds nothing: no pagination or ordering behavior, no statement of what happens when the animal has no identifiers, no permission context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing the enumerated return types with zero filler.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys both the scope and the kinds of identifiers returned, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the lack of routing to sibling identifier tools is a gap.

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% (animal_id documented as the animal UUID, farm_id as optional with a default), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that the lookup is per-animal and adds nothing about farm scoping when multiple farms are accessible.

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 (List) and resource (identifiers) and enumerates the identifier kinds returned (tags, names, EID, brand, tattoo), scoped to a single animal. It is distinguishable from list_animals and find_animal_by_identifier, though it does not name the adjacent sibling it is not.

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 'for a given animal' clause implies the trigger, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as find_identifier_history or find_animal_by_identifier, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing an animal UUID from list_animals).

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