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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only result-content detail (fields and the bed-type enum, plus cm units), not behavioral traits such as the default-garden fallback or ordering. Adequate but adds little beyond what annotations plus schema already imply.

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, no filler, and the payload of the tool (the fields returned) is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns 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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the bed-type enum, which is exactly what an agent needs to reason about results. The main remaining gap is the absence of any note about the default-garden behavior in the description body, though the schema covers 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?

There is a single optional 'garden' parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Garden name; defaults to the user's first garden.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 ('List') and resource ('the garden's beds') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: name, type with enumerated values, dimensions in cm, notes, and active-planting counts. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similar sibling 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?

The sentence 'Use to see what beds exist and where there may be room' gives a clear motivating scenario, so usage is implied rather than absent. However, no alternative is named (e.g., get_bed_layout for spatial detail, create_bed for adding), so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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