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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (farm name, location, type, URL) and the matching scope (farm names, stories, goods), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error conditions, or the read-only nature, leaving some gaps typical for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 that it's a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and what it matches. The schema handles parameter details. It doesn't mention pagination behavior but that's implied by the page parameter in the schema, so it's reasonably complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (page, query, province). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 searches the Find My Farmer registry of local farms in Canada, specifying the resource and scope. It lists the return fields (farm name, location, type, URL) and explicitly names the registry, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_farmdex that presumably target a different registry.

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 gives clear context: use this to search the Find My Farmer registry. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like search_farmdex or find_near, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage context is clear, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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