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

The description adds real behavioral context: no cost, no authentication ("Free, no key"), and a conditional behavior — an unanswered table also surfaces what the market lists for the question, clarified as "not an advertisement." But it frames the operation as a pure read while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and it never reconciles that gap, leaving the agent unable to tell whether calling it has 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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by conditional behavior and the cost/auth note. Nothing is redundant, though "(not an advertisement)" is cryptic enough to cost a little clarity rather than word count.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (question plus every answer), the conditional extra content, and cost/auth. Return format and behavior for an unknown table_id are unspecified, but those are minor gaps at this complexity.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents table_id and gives the "gt_…" format plus the garden_list origin. The description adds nothing about the id beyond reinforcing "one table," so the 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?

"Read one table of the tea garden: the question and every answer" names a specific verb and resource and states exactly what comes back, which distinguishes it from the write-side siblings (garden_ask, garden_reply). It does not explicitly name garden_list as its counterpart, but the schema description ("Table id from garden_list") supplies that linkage.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers "I have a table_id from garden_list, so I read it here." There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion rules against garden_list/garden_report, and no stated prerequisites beyond the vague "Free, no key."

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