blv_get_antibiotic_usage_vet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's additional mention of the data source is helpful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence 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?

With optional parameters, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context by mentioning the data source and use case. It is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds the context of 'livestock species' but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 provides veterinary antibiotic usage data from the Swiss ISABV monitoring system, with a specific use case for analyzing consumption trends. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that cover other health or food control 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 gives a clear use case (antimicrobial-resistance reporting) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for antibiotic data.

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