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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: daily free-seed quota, UTC reset, paid fallback cost, and that useFree:true forbids paid fallback. It still omits some mutation details, such as failure modes or whether planting is irreversible, but the core economic and quota behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important cost and quota constraints. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers quotas and costs well. However, it does not explain plotId, return values, failure behavior, or what happens when planting succeeds, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains seedId indirectly via 'random seed,' clarifies useFree:true semantics, and notes that requestId is a required UUID, but it leaves plotId completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plant a random seed in an empty plot.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as water, harvest, or garden_status.

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 provides clear usage context: planting requires an empty plot, the first seed each UTC day is free, and additional planting costs 1 KBUX. It does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives or name sibling tools, but the conditions and costs are stated.

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