Search Codex pets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating 'approved public' scope and excluding private requests. No new behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and filters; the second provides usage guidelines and alternatives. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers when and how to use the tool. It names all filter dimensions and explains the tool's scope. No gaps are apparent for the intended use case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the parameters ('by query, kind, tags, author, or Codex compatibility') but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already convey. For example, 'tags' parameter details are fully in schema; no extra context is given.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'discover one or more approved public Codex pet packs' using specific filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming get_pet and get_pet_request_info and explaining when each should be preferred.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over get_pet when you do not already have an exact slug or need multiple candidates.' Also states when not to use: 'Do not use for private generation requests or known-slug install/share snippets; use get_pet_request_info or a slug-specific get_* tool instead.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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