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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the result shape ('per-plant totals') and says nothing about ordering, date-window defaults, or result size 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, purpose front-loaded before the usage cue, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause carries information.

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 signals the return shape ('per-plant totals') and the read-only list nature is carried by annotations. It is thin on the filter semantics and date-range behavior, but nothing essential for a correct invocation 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 description never mentions any of the three filters, and the 'plant' parameter has no schema description at all (67% coverage). The 'per-plant totals' phrasing hints that plants are a dimension but does not tell the agent that 'plant' is a filter argument, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List harvests') plus a scope qualifier ('with per-plant totals'), which separates it from record_harvest and update_harvest by implication. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Use when the user asks what/how much they harvested' gives a concrete triggering condition rather than vague context. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_history or query_plantings) or stating when not to use it.

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