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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, side effects, or authorization), so it stays at the baseline for tools with annotations covering the safety profile.

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 concise—two sentences—and includes meaningful examples while avoiding fluff. It efficiently conveys the search scope and the primary use case.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool, the description provides sufficient context: what is searched (cultivars, breeders, articles), the meaning-aware fields, and when to use it versus list_strains. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions and examples (e.g., 'gelato', 'seed junky'). Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no further parameter details, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: a one-call search across cultivars, breeder registry, and published articles. It also explicitly differentiates from list_strains, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Start here when a user names a strain, breeder or topic and you are not sure of the slug' and directs users to list_strains for ranked, filtered results. This provides clear when-to-use instructions and alternative handling.

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