calculate_pet_age

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains the conversion and lists inputs/output. However, it does not disclose any underlying formula, assumptions, or edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple calculator. Transparency is basic but not misleading.

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 three sentences covering action, use case, inputs, output, and a reference. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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's low complexity, the description covers the main purpose, inputs, and output. An output schema exists (not shown) which likely details return values, so completeness is adequate. Some mention of return format could be added but not necessary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three inputs (animal type, age years, breed size) in prose, adding context beyond the raw schema parameters. It does not detail acceptable values or formats, but the schema already provides enums and constraints.

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 tool converts pet age (dog/cat) to human-equivalent years, and mentions inputs and output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_dog_age and calculate_cat_age by covering both species and including breed size, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 a generic use case ('Use for pet health monitoring') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_dog_age or calculate_cat_age. The mention of list_bundles is a reference but not a usage guideline.

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