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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result set deliberately includes empty seasons (QTDE_TALHOES 0, sem cultura) and marks which safra is current — edge cases an agent would otherwise guess wrong about. It does not mention pagination or ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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: what it returns first, the inclusion edge case second, usage and the ID_SAFRA consumer last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, yet the description still flags the non-obvious ones. Combined with the 100%-covered lone parameter and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself documents the default-fazenda behavior and the one-fazenda-per-query rule. The description adds nothing about the fazenda argument, 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 (lista) and resource (safras da fazenda) and enumerates what comes back — período, culturas, área total, indicação de safra corrente. The explicit inclusion of safras with QTDE_TALHOES 0 (sem cultura) distinguishes it from any tool that would only return planted seasons, and cadastrar_safra is clearly the write counterpart.

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 antes de filtrar qualquer consulta por safra" states the prerequisite condition explicitly, and "ID_SAFRA é o que cadastrar_plantio pede" routes the agent to the sibling that consumes the output. This is a when-to-use rule plus an alternative/downstream pointer, not inference.

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