Finds Pets by status.

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds a behavioral detail that multiple status values can be combined as comma-separated strings, which is not in the annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's input behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and gets straight to the usage detail. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks an explicit return-value statement, but the tool's name and title imply the result is a list of pets. The added comma-separated behavior completes the essential input semantics, making the overall definition reasonably complete.

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 schema describes the status parameter with an enum and a generic description, but the description clarifies that comma-separated multiple values are accepted. This is critical parameter semantics not explicitly stated in the schema. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema's built-in documentation.

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 only states 'Multiple status values can be provided with comma separated strings,' which does not explicitly state that the tool finds pets. The tool's name and title convey the function, but the description itself lacks a clear verb+resource statement. Thus, the purpose is vague when relying on the description alone.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like find_pets_by_tags. It only offers a parameter formatting note, not tool-selection context. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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