List rations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful domain context (what fields a ration carries) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, whether inactive rations are included by default, or whether farm_id is effectively required despite the schema showing zero required parameters.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the clarifying gloss trailing after the colon. Nothing is wasted, but there is no structure for the filtering/pagination information an agent would need.

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 four-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition should carry more weight. It omits pagination semantics, the effective requirement for farm_id, and the meaning of include_inactive, leaving gaps an agent cannot resolve from structured data.

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 0% and none of the four parameters (skip, take, farm_id, include_inactive) are explained anywhere. The phrase 'on the farm' faintly implies farm_id, but the description does not clarify its role, nor the default for include_inactive, nor the pagination contract.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (feed rations) with a domain gloss that explains what a ration actually is: named recipes in per-head-per-day amounts with ingredients and group assignments. This is well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_ration, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_ration, create_ration, or list_feedings, and no guidance on how the pagination or filtering parameters should be used. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_ration.

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