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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it stresses that the output is a proposal with no writes, and it discloses the return shape (every bed's chain, or one bed's chain plus remainingCount when the plan covers a single bed).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the proposal caveat and the return-shape note. It is dense and covers a lot of ground in three sentences with little waste, though the final return-shape clause is packed tightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does, covering both the multi-bed chain and the single-bed plus remainingCount case. Combined with the write-free guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and both parameters (today, garden) are fully documented in the schema, including their defaults. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Compute the garden's rest-of-season planting schedule' — and immediately scopes it: every bed's next crops chained to first frost, deconflicted across beds with rotation and sow windows. That is far more specific than the name and clearly separates it from list/get siblings like get_plan or get_bed_layout.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not ('Returns a PROPOSAL only — nothing is written') and names the follow-up alternative, 'use add_planned_planting to accept a row into the succession plan'. It stops short of contrasting against the near-name sibling get_plan, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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