get_pet_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires authentication ('Requires WAG_EMAIL and WAG_PASSWORD'), and specifies the data scope. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and content, the second specifies authentication requirements. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, content details, and authentication requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error handling, but covers the essential aspects well given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with the single parameter 'booking_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.

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 specific action ('Get the report card') and resource ('for a completed walk'), with detailed content listing ('photos, walker notes, potty breaks, behavior tags, and route map'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_walk_status' by focusing on post-walk reports rather than current status.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a completed walk' and authentication requirements, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_walk_status' for ongoing walks or 'rate_walker' for feedback. It provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons.

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