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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds real context: results carry 'matched_on' and 'interpreted', each result may include a 'menu' block with live-availability URL, and 'nothing is inferred beyond the documented record'. It does not cover pagination behavior or result-size characteristics, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the q semantics, then return-field behavior. Every sentence carries information and it avoids repetition, though the single long middle sentence is dense.

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 and 15 parameters, the description compensates by explaining the key return fields (matched_on, interpreted, menu/availability URL). Safety is covered by annotations. Minor gaps remain around pagination and how ranking/tie-breaking works.

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 73% and the schema documents most params, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by giving concrete examples of what 'q' understands and by explaining that query meanings map onto explicit filters, which helps an agent choose between the two input strategies.

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?

States a specific verb (meaning-aware search/list) over a specific resource (the 339-cultivar encyclopedia) and describes the ranking behavior. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_strain (single record) and list_breeders (a different resource).

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 implies usage by contrasting free-text 'q' with explicit filters ('the same meanings are available as explicit filters') and by pointing to list_breeders for breeder slugs. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over search or get_strain, nor any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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