get_animal_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It partially discharges that by disclosing the returned fields (species, count, distance, hostility), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about read-only semantics, cost, save-state prerequisites, or whether results are grouped versus flat.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the content scope comes before the field list. The parenthetical species enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by defining what 'animals' covers. Nothing is redundant.

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 read-only report tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and thus covers the most important gap. It falls short on sibling disambiguation against get_infected_types and on any note about scope, defaults, or result shape.

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%, so all three parameters (radius, include_hidden, include_normal) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only faintly echoes include_normal by mentioning normal wildlife alongside infected animals. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents: infected animals (dogs, birds, bears, moose, bulls, giants) plus normal wildlife (boar, deer), with species, count, distance and hostility. That is concrete and distinguishable from most report siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling get_infected_types, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this or get_infected_types for infected-only data. The word 'overview' faintly implies a summary report, but that is inference rather than guidance.

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