list_vaccinations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructveHint=false. The description adds only '[GET]', which mostly duplicates the read-only annotation, and provides no additional behavioral context such as empty results, 404 behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though extremely minimal.

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 one-parameter read-only endpoint with rich annotations, a short description can be sufficient. However, it omits any mention of response shape, parameter semantics, or conditions for use, making it only minimally complete for guiding a correct call.

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% for the only parameter petId, and the description does not explicitly map 'petId' to its role beyond saying 'of a pet'. This gives a weak hint that petId identifies the pet but does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vaccinations of a pet'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pets and get_pet. No ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 phrase 'of a pet' implies the tool is for retrieving vaccination records for one pet, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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