pet_adopt

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the idempotency hint and the "some species need image setup" precondition, but leaves both vague (which species, what setup, what happens on failure).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key constraint (idempotent retry) is easy to spot. It is efficient, though the terseness verges on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only two annotations, the description is too thin: it omits required-parameter formats, the meaning of kind, error/retry semantics beyond request_id, and any post-adoption state.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it only touches request_id (retry behavior) and obliquely kind ("species"). The name parameter and the accepted values for kind are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a verb and resource ("Adopt a pet"), which is enough to know the general action, but gives no indication of what adoption actually does in this system (creates a record? assigns an existing entity?) and never distinguishes it from sibling tools like pet_care or nest_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 trigger is implied rather than specified: "when the user requests it" restates the obvious instead of giving concrete conditions. It does offer one useful operational guideline, reusing request_id on retries, but names no alternatives or exclusory cases.

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