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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the evaluation is deterministic with no AI, and it discloses the three result categories including the honest handling of inputs it cannot judge. It stops short of stating that the tool is purely non-mutating/read-only and has no side effects, which is the main unstated behavioral trait.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the guarantees and outputs. Every clause carries information — determinism, rule basis, and result categories — 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns, and it does name the three return categories. For a 3-parameter deterministic analysis tool this is close to complete, though the shape/severity of individual violations and cautions is only described at a high level.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real linkage: naming 'same active group repeated' and 'label withdrawal period breached' tells the agent that irac_group/active must be populated and that label_withdrawal_days is compared against harvest_date. That is meaning beyond the field-level schema text, though the role of infestation_percent is left unstated.

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: check a beekeeper's varroa treatment history against published resistance-rotation guidance, then enumerate what the check produces (violations, cautions, unjudged inputs). This is far more than a tautology and an agent can tell what the tool computes. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_active_groups or get_thresholds, which an agent might plausibly reach for when assembling inputs.

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 implies the use case (validating a treatment history against rotation rules) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to sibling tools. It also never says whether a harvest_date or infestation_percent is required for the useful checks, leaving the agent to infer invocation conditions from the schema alone.

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