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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the sign-in requirement and the 'as available in the user's app' caveat that some sections may be absent. It does not discuss what happens for an invalid or inaccessible plant_id.

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?

Two sentences, both information-dense: the first front-loads the return contents that matter most for selection, the second carries the prerequisite and auth constraint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so section by section, plus the auth prerequisite. Minor gaps remain around behavior on an unknown ID or partial data, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'The plant_id from list_my_plants.' The description repeats that provenance verbatim, adding no format, length, or failure-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a single resource ('One saved plant') and then enumerates its exact contents: details and notes, recent assessments with care steps, next check-in, and active care tasks. That enumeration separates it from siblings like get_upcoming_checkins and get_result, which cover only one slice each, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a concrete routing instruction — obtain the plant_id from list_my_plants — which tells the agent the required preceding call. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_result or get_upcoming_checkins when the agent already has an ID, and gives no when-not guidance.

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