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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a comprehensive profile, accepts either cropId or plantName, and gives attribution instructions. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states purpose and outputs; the second adds usage context and attribution requirement. No wasted words, well-organized.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers input guidance (cropId vs plantName, locale), attribution, and references sibling tools. It is complete for the tool's complexity. Could mention any limits (e.g., rate limits) 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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the role of cropId (direct lookup, skipping name search), the default for locale, and the flexibility of plantName. It also references sibling tools for obtaining cropId, which is helpful.

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 looks up detailed plant information, listing specific fields (sowing, planting, harvest seasons, spacing, light/water/nutrient requirements, companion partners). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_crops and get_seasonal_calendar by accepting cropId from them for direct 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for comprehensive plant profile) and how to use it (prefer cropId from search_crops or get_seasonal_calendar, or use plantName). It also instructs on attributing data to the Fryd database. It could be improved by stating when not to use it (e.g., if only companion info needed, use check_companion_planting).

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