HortOS (New Zealand)

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds important behavior beyond those: it does not place an order, returns a link on HortOS, and requires the person to review and send before grower confirmation. This meaningfully clarifies the workflow without contradicting 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?

The description is three focused sentences: core action, return value, and the critical non-ordering caveat. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input, the matching behavior, the return link, and the post-call workflow. An agent has enough to invoke the tool and set expectations for the user.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents job, list, and near effectively. The description adds contextual flavor such as 'growers near the job preferred' but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'price a whole plant list or planting schedule' from wholesale growers, and states the matching outcome and returned link. It distinguishes itself from sibling search_plants by focusing on list pricing and order hand-off, not plant search.

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 clear context for use: the tool accepts a plant list or planting schedule, matches lines to growers, and returns a link for the user to review and send. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_plants, so it misses the top score.

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

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds useful context: it returns grower availability, pot sizes, and NZD ex GST pricing, and accepts both botanical and common names. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for result scope, though it does not describe response structure or limitations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately answers likely agent questions about what the search returns and how to phrase queries.

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 read-only search tool with a single required parameter and well-documented optional parameters, the description is sufficient to guide correct invocation. It covers purpose, query style, and key output dimensions. It could slightly improve by clarifying the relationship to price_plant_list, but this is not a blocking gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds a useful note about botanical/common name flexibility, but does not substantially enrich the semantics of the size or state parameters beyond the schema.

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 New Zealand's live wholesale plant market, returning growers, pot sizes, and trade prices. It uses a specific verb and resource, making its purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool price_plant_list, but the purpose is specific enough.

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 concrete example queries ('who grows X' or 'what does X cost wholesale') and notes botanical or common names both work. It provides clear context for use, though it does not state when to avoid this tool or mention the sibling alternative by name.

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