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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics about the entity's state (planned, not yet sown), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether repeated calls create duplicate plans, or what is returned.

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 tightly written sentences: the exclusion/alternative comes first, followed by the usage trigger and a concrete example. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Covers the essential create-vs-plan distinction for an 8-parameter tool, but with no output schema the description should say what the call returns (e.g. a planned-planting identifier) and whether a duplicate submission is possible given idempotentHint=false. Those gaps are real, though not fatal.

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 75%, so the schema already documents bed, garden, method, cropSlug, targetDate and displayName. The description only illustrates bed and targetDate through the example ('Bed 2 on August 15') and never mentions quantity, notes or cropSlug, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource — 'Queue a future planting for a bed as part of a succession plan' — and explicitly contrasts the created entity with add_planting ('it is NOT yet sown'). An agent can distinguish it from add_planting and place_planting without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('use when the user wants to plan ahead') and names the alternative tool plus the discriminating condition ('use add_planting for something the user already planted'). A concrete example utterance reinforces the trigger.

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