Owner-Pet Compatibility

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent, which is consistent. But description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., how score is derived, any side effects, or what happens with invalid input).

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?

Description is short but includes a group tag and an example. However, the example is long and the mismatch with schema reduces clarity. Could be more streamlined.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return format and fields. Only 'score (0-100)' is mentioned. Input structure is ambiguous. Overall lacks completeness for a computation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but the description adds no additional meaning. Moreover, the example uses nested objects ('owner', 'pet') not reflected in the flat schema, causing confusion.

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?

Description states it computes a compatibility score (0-100) for owner-pet, but the phrase 'element + sign distance' is vague and the input structure is unclear due to mismatch between example (nested objects) and flat schema.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like synastry or other pet tools. No prerequisites or exclusions provided.

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