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 '12-month grid' output shape, which is useful behavioral context, but nothing about rate limits, auth, or truncation behaviour (the 'first 60' caps live only in the 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the capability list is front-loaded and the use case follows. Slightly dense but every 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 no output schema, the description does supply the return shape ('a 12-month grid'), and annotations cover safety. What is missing is only marginal: how results are ordered or whether the 60-item cap truncates silently.

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 enum values and defaults fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by slug, category or group' merely restates the parameter names without adding format, priority, 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?

The description names a concrete resource (planting calendar) and enumerates the operations it covers (sow, plant, flower, harvest, prune, feed) plus the selector dimension (slug, category, group), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, what_to_plant, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

One positive use case is given: 'Use it to compare timings across several plants,' which implies the multi-plant comparison scenario. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over what_to_plant or get_kitchen_garden_guide, and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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