swagger-petstore---openapi-3.0.addPet

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the agent knows it's a write. The description adds little beyond 'Add a new pet', which does convey creation but not side effects like what happens if the pet ID already exists or if the store is full. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, 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?

The description is incredibly brief—a single, simple sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose without fillers. It's front-loaded and every word matters, making it highly concise and effective for quick scanning.

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 but no parameters in the input schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't explain what a 'new pet' consists of, what the return value is (though output schema may cover that), or any potential errors. For a create operation, more detail about required fields and behavior would be expected; the description alone is too thin for complete guidance.

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 has no properties, so the description is the only source of meaning for parameters. It says 'Add a new pet', which implies the pet object must be provided, but it doesn't specify fields. However, with zero parameters in the schema, the description partially compensates by at least indicating the action. Baseline for 0 params is 4, so this is reasonable.

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 verb and resource ('Add a new pet to the store'), which indicates a create operation on a pet. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'updatePet' or 'createUser' beyond the basic resource, and could be more specific about the parameters required (e.g., pet details).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using 'updatePet' to modify an existing pet or 'findPetsByStatus' to search. It doesn't mention any prerequisites like authentication or schema requirements. The context implies creation, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references are present.

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