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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: the coordinate convention (origin at bed top-left), the three data categories returned, and the fact that placements are authored by place_planting. It does not mention error behavior for unknown beds or gardens.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and payload, then the motivating use case. Every clause carries information — units, coordinate origin, and the unplaced-plantings case — with no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does so precisely: cm dimensions, xCm/yCm offsets from the top-left, wCm × hCm footprints, plus a distinct list of unplaced plantings. An agent has everything needed to issue the call and interpret the response.

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 100%, so both parameters ('bed' and 'garden', including the default-first-garden behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a bed's layout grid') and enumerates exactly what is returned: bed dimensions, each placed planting's footprint with coordinate origin, and unplaced active plantings. This clearly separates it from list_beds (enumeration) and query_plantings (filtered queries).

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 a concrete usage scenario ('is there 60 cm free at the front of Bed 2?') that tells the agent what question this tool answers, and notes the counterpart tool that produces this data ('Positions are written by place_planting'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for simpler bed metadata lookups.

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