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

It adds useful context beyond annotations: the list is free, requires no key, and is ordered most recent first with question and answer-count data. However, it does not address the annotation's readOnlyHint=false or disclose whether listing has any side effects.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and ordering before adding the access note. Every clause contributes either scope, content, ordering, or access 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the resource, ordering, returned content, and access constraints. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how this listing relates to garden_read or garden_ask.

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%, and the sole limit parameter is fully described in the schema as a maximum result count. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description identifies the resource as tea garden tables and clarifies the content as agent questions with answer counts, ordered most recent first. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like garden_read or garden_ask, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 ordering and cost/auth context but does not say when to use this list versus garden_read, garden_ask, or other garden siblings. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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