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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond that: the result set is restricted to status='planned' and done/skipped entries are excluded, which tells the agent what it will and won't receive. It stops short of describing ordering or volume, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: definition and filter, usage triggers, and the sibling handoff. The scoping constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 ideally would say something about what a returned planting looks like, and it doesn't. Everything else an agent needs — scope, triggers, alternative, filter behavior — is present, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter.

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 the single 'garden' parameter already documents that it defaults to the user's first garden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. what a garden name must match), so this correctly sits at the baseline where the schema carries the load.

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 (planned plantings) plus the exact filter scope: status='planned' only, with done/skipped omitted. It explicitly distinguishes itself from query_plantings, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Names three concrete user intents that select this tool ('what's coming up next', 'what they've planned to plant', 'review their succession plan') and gives an explicit alternative for the opposing case: 'For plantings already in the ground, use query_plantings instead.' Both when and when-not are covered.

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