blv_get_animal_health_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context (annual statistics, public data), but does not disclose potential quirks like rate limits or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a practical use case. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the data source and use case. However, it could briefly mention that data is aggregated or provide a default behavior hint, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'year' parameter: 'Filter by year (e.g. 2023). None returns all available years.' The description mentions 'year-over-year' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 retrieves annual animal health statistics from BLV, specifying the source (opendata.swiss) and format (CSV/JSON). The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like blv_get_antibiotic_usage_vet or blv_get_avian_influenza, which focus on different data.

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 includes a direct use case: 'track year-over-year animal health indicators across Switzerland,' which helps the agent understand when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the clear context compensates.

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