animal_product_quality

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

Describes core behavior: reads save animals or models a hypothetical. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks detail on non-destructive nature, performance, or auth needs, but sufficient for a query tool.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the result (Iridium/gold/silver/normal produce odds), making it immediately understandable.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers both modes (read vs model) and key inputs. Could mention the mathematical relationship but not necessary for completeness.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds integration context by grouping parameters (friendship, mood, profession bonus) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it computes Iridium/gold/silver/normal produce odds per animal based on friendship, mood, and profession bonus. Distinguishes from sibling 'animal_product_value' which focuses on value, and from 'crop_quality_odds' which is for crops.

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?

Implies two modes: read all save animals (by default) or model one (by providing parameters). However, no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'animal_product_value' or when not to use.

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