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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authorization requirement, which is useful context, but it does not address pagination, result size, or scope limits.

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 short sentences, with the action and returned resources front-loaded before the authorization note. No filler, though the trailing apiKey clause is slightly confusing rather than earning 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned entities (yards, hives, queen statuses, varroa inspections), which is exactly what an agent needs to judge relevance. The only gap is the unexplained apiKey authorization requirement that has no corresponding parameter.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents farmId fully; baseline 3 applies. The description restates that farmId is required but adds no format or constraint detail, and its mention of an 'apiKey' is not represented in the schema at all.

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 concrete verb (Retrieve) and enumerates the resources returned: yards, hives, queen statuses, varroa inspections. This separates it from generic siblings like get_bird_batches or get_egg_collections, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond an authorization mention, and no routing to related tools such as log_hive_inspection or update_queen_status. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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