list_rations

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and no annotation contradiction exists. The description adds useful scope ('on the farm') and content expectations (ingredients, group assignments), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like default active-only filtering or pagination behavior beyond what the schema parameters imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the operation, the scope, and the content of the returned items. Every clause adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and all-optional parameters, the description supplies the essential mental model: what a ration is and what the list will contain. The schema covers pagination and active/inactive controls, so nothing critical 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with individual property descriptions, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level semantics (e.g., how skip/take or include_inactive work), which is acceptable at baseline.

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 ('List feed rations') and enriches it with a precise definition: named recipes in per-head-per-day amounts with ingredients and group assignments. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_feedings, get_ration, and list_groups.

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 implies the tool is for farm-level ration definitions rather than actual feeding events, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_ration or list_feedings, nor does it state when not to use it. Context is present; exclusions and alternate routing are absent.

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