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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that results are botanical lineage data rather than dispensary inventory, which is a subtle and valuable distinction beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying product-vs-strain distinction is placed exactly where it prevents misinterpretation.

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, read-only search tool with all parameters documented, the description provides the necessary result-domain context and sibling disambiguation. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description names the returned fields.

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%, so limit, query, and genetics are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'genetics' and result content but does not add meaning to individual parameters; this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies a specific resource ('strain profiles') and the content returned ('genetics, THC and CBD ranges and reported effects'). It also explicitly distinguishes strains from products, making the tool's purpose stand apart from sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: strains are plant lineages, not purchasable products, and it names the alternative tool ('use find_products for what is actually dispensed'). This prevents misuse better than most definitions.

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