Plant Guide: Dubai gardening research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a shareable link whose state is a pre-populated plant list, which is useful context, but says nothing about link lifetime, whether it is shareable externally, or any auth/limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool produces, with a purpose clause that earns its place by explaining the payoff. No filler or repetition of the name, though the sentence is slightly long for the amount of new information it carries.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive link builder with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the deliverable (a link) and its behavior. Minor gaps remain around link persistence and whether the link is meant for the agent's user or the designer, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'plants' parameter is already documented as 1-20 items by slug or name. The description restates that the plants land in the planner's plant list but adds no format, slug-resolution, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 artifact and its effect: a link that opens the 3D garden planner with the supplied plants preloaded. That is far more concrete than the tool name alone, and no sibling (all content/guide readers) overlaps with it. It stops short of explicitly positioning itself against any sibling, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'so the person can plan a layout or send the list to our designer' hints at the two downstream scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many garden-info siblings. An agent can infer intent but is not guided.

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

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, non-open-world computation, so the description's remaining job is to add cost-relevant context. It does: prices are in AED, exclude 5% VAT, and the response includes visit frequency plus a breakdown, which tells the agent what it will get back. It does not describe pricing tiers or whether inputs are validated against ranges, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the deliverable (monthly price) before the inputs and the output detail. It is efficient but telegraphic, and a reader must parse a long prepositional chain to separate inputs from outputs.

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?

With 5 required, fully documented enum/number parameters and no output schema, the description usefully closes the loop by stating the currency, VAT treatment and the shape of the return (visit frequency, breakdown). What remains missing is any indication of pricing assumptions or escalation factors, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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%, with enums fully annotated for lawn, pool, trees and complexity and a 0–2000 bound on areaM2. The description merely echoes the parameter names, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb-and-output (monthly Garden Care price) for a specific scope (Dubai villa) and enumerates the driving inputs. It is unmistakably a pricing-estimate tool and cannot be confused with the informational siblings (get_plant, what_to_plant, get_guide). It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, which is unnecessary here but keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the description – call it to get a monthly care price estimate for a villa garden – but there is no explicit 'use this when' trigger, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to an alternative pricing path. Adequate but a clear gap.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by clarifying that generating the link sends nothing and that dispatch only happens when the user presses send in WhatsApp, which is exactly the doubt an agent would have about a contact tool. It could say more about link format or lifetime, but the core behavioral concern is addressed.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core deliverable stated first and the safety reassurance second. Nothing repeats the annotations or wastes space.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description does describe the return value as a click-to-chat link and explains the non-sending behavior, which is the key thing an agent needs. Missing details like whether the link is prefixed with a URL scheme or has any expiry keep it from a 5.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the defaulting rule for topic and the plant-listing behavior. The description only restates the parameter names as message ingredients, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: it produces a WhatsApp click-to-chat link with a pre-filled message, and enumerates what goes into the message (topic, plants, community, notes). That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling build_designer_link, which is the other link-generating tool.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use it when the person wants a quote, a visit, or help from the team. That is genuinely useful call-site context. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'for design links use build_designer_link'), so it stops short of a routing rule.

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

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the data source (WMO 1991–2020 normals) and specifying that months include garden and pool tasks, though it does not describe return structure or any operational caveats.

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 enumerates the returned data without redundancy or filler. Every clause contributes a distinct piece of information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and rich annotations, the description fully specifies what the tool returns. An agent needs no additional input details or behavioral caveats to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no input semantics to clarify. The schema is empty and complete; the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 states exactly what data is returned: Dubai's monthly average high/low temperatures, rainfall, planting season, summer work-ban months, and garden/pool tasks per month. It is specific enough to distinguish this Dubai-focused tool from generic siblings like get_planting_calendar or what_to_plant.

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 only lists the content of the tool and gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_planting_calendar, get_kitchen_garden_guide, or what_to_plant. There are no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints for the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is enumerating the returned sections (mood, upkeep cadence, water, Dubai notes, plant palette), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about response size, caching, or failure modes.

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 zero filler, and the enumeration of contents is justified because no output schema exists to convey the return shape. It is slightly run-on, but every clause maps to real returned content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by itemizing what the guide contains, so an agent can judge whether the result will answer the user's question. The notable gap is the absence of any discovery guidance about how to obtain valid style slugs.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already gives example values (tropical, manicured, luxury, desert-modern) and length bounds. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats or invalid-input behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (the full guide for one garden style) and enumerates exactly what the payload covers, so an agent knows this is a per-style content retrieval, not a list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_guide, search_guides, or list_garden_styles, leaving the routing to inference.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_garden_styles (to discover valid styles) or search_guides/get_guide. The only implicit guidance is that you must already know a style to call it, which is left for the agent to infer from the required 'style' parameter.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by specifying the return shape (full Markdown with FAQ and sources), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the essential fact (what is returned and in what form). Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key unknown — what the caller receives. It stops short of mentioning failure behavior for a missing slug, which is the only notable gap.

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% and there is a single required 'slug' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input, including an example and a pointer to search_guides. The description adds nothing beyond 'one guide', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource ('one guide'), the scope ('in full'), and the return format ('as Markdown, with its FAQ and sources'). It clearly implies single-item retrieval, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_guides.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this to read a specific guide. However, the when-to-use routing ('find slugs with search_guides') lives only in the schema's slug description, not the tool description, and no exclusions or preconditions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: what each section contains, that omitting 'month' returns the guide alone, and that every plant is linked — but it says nothing about response size or pagination for a potentially large 'all' payload.

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 content-scope enumeration is front-loaded and every listed item is meaningful, and the second sentence carries the actionable instruction. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but it earns its length by mapping the tool's coverage.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content exists, how to scope it by section and month, and where to go next. Only the shape/size of the returned guide is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters (month, section) are already fully documented with enums, ranges and defaults. The description restates section meanings and the 'leave it out' behavior for month, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource ('the starting point for anything about houseplants and indoor plants in Dubai') and enumerates the exact content sections it covers, so an agent knows precisely what this returns versus get_kitchen_garden_guide or get_indoor_style. It also names the sibling tools (search_plants, get_plant) used downstream, making its position in the workflow unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit selection instructions: ask for one named section or 'all', optionally add a month, then shortlist with search_plants and read details with get_plant. The routing from this guide to the two follow-up tools is spelled out with their parameters, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the invalid-slug fallback that returns valid slugs plus the closest match. It does not discuss size, caching, or truncation of the returned guide, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents; the routing instruction and error behavior come last, which is the right order. The content enumeration is long but every item is informative rather than filler, so it stays efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so field by field (palette, key plants, pet safety, pots, budgeted starter set, steps, Dubai notes, pros/cons, FAQ). Combined with the slug sourcing rule, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already documents the slug, its length bounds, its source, and gives the 'japandi-calm' example. The description restates the source without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; the wrong-slug recovery note is the only marginal addition.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('the full guide to one indoor plant style') and enumerates exactly what the guide contains (mood/palette, key plants with light and pet safety, pots, starter set with AED budget, Dubai notes, FAQ). It is cleanly separable from the sibling get_indoor_plant_guide, which it identifies as the index this tool draws its slug from.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required input comes from ('take a slug from get_indoor_plant_guide (section styles)') and what happens on a bad value ('a wrong slug returns the valid ones and the closest'). It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like get_garden_style or get_indoor_plant_guide, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the guide's sections, effectively disclosing what the agent will receive, though it does not state output format or length.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main topic, with no filler. Each clause adds a distinct section of the guide.

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 parameterless, read-only guide with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the guide's scope. It omits return format and sourcing, but is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 states a specific resource — a kitchen garden guide for Dubai — and enumerates its contents (sowing/harvest calendar, bed types, step-by-step build). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_guide or what_to_plant by topic, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or names an alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. With overlapping siblings such as get_guide, what_to_plant, and get_planting_calendar, the description never tells the agent which tool to choose for a given query.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds substantial behavioral context about response contents, the extra 'Indoors in Dubai' houseplant profile, and alias listing under 'Also known as'. It does not disclose what happens when a plant is not found, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first clause, with no filler or marketing language. The long comma-separated inventory of profile sections is dense but each item conveys real scope rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including the houseplant-specific section and name aliasing. The main omission is failure behavior for an unresolvable name, the single most likely error path for a name-based lookup.

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% and the input description already documents slug, common/trade/botanical/Arabic/local-script names, and typo tolerance in near-identical terms, so this is largely repetition. The only marginal addition is that all resolved names are returned under 'Also known as', which is output rather than input semantics.

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 specific verb and resource ('Everything about one plant in Dubai') and enumerates the profile's contents in detail. It is implicitly distinguishable from search_plants as the single-entity detail lookup rather than a search endpoint, and the name-resolution sentence makes the one-plant scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by stating it returns 'everything about one plant' and that it resolves any name form, but no sibling is named and there is no when-to-use vs search_plants guidance or exclusion. An agent must infer that it should search first if it lacks a plant name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful output shape (a 12-month grid), but omits behavioral traits an agent would care about, such as the 60-result truncation for group/category queries and the default set applied when no selector is given.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the usage hint second. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-param, read-only query with a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool returns and why you'd use it. The only gap is that the default selection behavior and result cap live solely in the schema rather than the description.

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%, so all three selectors, their enums and the default-to-kitchen-garden behavior are already documented. The description's "(by slug, category or group)" merely restates the selector options without adding syntax, precedence, or combination semantics.

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 concrete resource (planting calendar months for sow/plant/flower/harvest/prune/feed) and the return shape (a 12-month grid), which is more than the title alone conveys. It does not name or contrast with the closest sibling, what_to_plant, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use it to compare timings across several plants" implies a multi-plant comparison scenario, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to what_to_plant or search_plants as the single-plant alternative. Usage must be inferred from the comparison hint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the exact payload fields (mood, upkeep effort, water use, build cost per m², key plants) an agent will receive, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 that names the resource and its attributes with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only catalog with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the scope (Dubai) and the fields returned. The one substantive gap is the failure to distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_garden_style single-item operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.

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 specific verb+resource (lists the garden styles designed in Dubai) and enumerates the concrete values returned (tropical, manicured, luxury, desert modern). It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_garden_style, so an agent cannot tell from this text which of the two to pick for a single-style lookup.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to call this for a broad catalog versus get_garden_style for one specific style, and no prerequisite or ordering advice is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the corpus scope (which guide categories are searchable) but says nothing about result count, ranking, pagination, or empty-result 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. Minor waste: the trailing pillar list simply repeats the enum values already present in the schema.

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 an all-optional, 3-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: scope and filter axes are clear. What is missing is any signal about how many guides come back or how a zero-match query behaves, which matters for an agent choosing between this and get_guide.

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 each parameter's description already documenting format and examples. The description only restates that searching happens by keyword, topic or month, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Find our practical guides') and enumerates the content scope (planting calendar, watering, lawns, indoor plants, costs, approvals). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_guide or search_plants, but the multi-result keyword/topic/month framing is distinct enough for an agent to select it.

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 usage through the filter axes (keyword, topic, month) but never states when this tool is preferable to get_guide (single-guide fetch) or search_plants. No exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback guidance are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the four indoor filters restrict results to plants with an indoor profile, and results are short profiles with links rather than full plant records.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for a 20-parameter search tool. The second sentence is dense and somewhat repetitive with schema wording, but both sentences carry useful selection and filtering context.

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 complex 20-parameter tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the main search/filter purposes, the special indoor-filter behavior, the return format, and when to call get_plant instead.

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 the schema already explains all 20 parameters in detail. The description summarizes the filter families and reinforces the indoor-profile behavior, but it does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (search and filter the plant library) and scopes it to Dubai-rated plants. It also distinguishes the tool from get_plant by saying it returns short profiles with links and directing users to get_plant for full details.

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?

It gives clear usage context, including a concrete houseplant example and the indoor-filter behavior for light, petSafe, room and size. It also names get_plant as the alternative for full plant details, though it does not explicitly cover when not to use this tool or mention guide-oriented siblings.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, closed-world and idempotency, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: it defaults to the current Dubai month and silently includes the indoor-plants block only when no group (or group=indoor) is given. That conditional output rule is real value beyond the annotations; return shape and the sampling behavior of limit are left unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the routing cue; nothing is padding. Slightly dense/packed with enumerated return items, but each clause carries information.

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?

With zero required parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back — and it does, listing the sections returned plus the default month and the indoor-block rule. An agent can call this correctly from the description alone.

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 month/season/group/limit are all documented in the schema already. The description reinforces the group→indoor-block interaction and hints that month accepts names like 'October' or 'summer', but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (what to sow and plant in Dubai for a month/season) and enumerates the payload: flowering, fruiting, harvest, verdict, tips, watch-outs, climate. It stops short of naming the sibling it overlaps with (get_planting_calendar / get_indoor_plant_guide), so differentiation is only implied by 'Start here'.

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?

'Start here for any "what should I plant now / in October / in summer" question' gives a clear triggering condition and example phrasings, and the default (current month in Dubai) is stated. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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