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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds non-obvious context beyond annotations: it works without a Siltwell account, and it discloses what is returned (season length, seasonal GDD, crop heat suitability). It does not repeat the annotations.

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, zero waste, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the routing guidance. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return content (frost-free season length, seasonal GDD, crop ripening verdict). Auth context (works without an account) and sibling routing complete the picture, though pagination/units are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (place, latitude, longitude) are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit place to use your garden' behavior. The description confirms 'at any place' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (look up) and resource (frost-free season length and growing degree days) with concrete outputs including whether heat-loving crops ripen. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings get_plan and get_history, which it names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for any place, or omit place for the signed-in user's garden; use get_plan for microclimate-adjusted frost dates and get_history for daily GDD. Names the alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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