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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no account is required, and omitting crops caps the result at the 30 earliest-next-step crops. It does not discuss result shape beyond the count, so it stops short of 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?

Four sentences, none wasted, with purpose and scope front-loaded before the sibling comparison. The 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD' aside is a small interruption but still earns its place as a format contract.

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 must carry return semantics, and it does explain the default result set (30 soonest crops), the crop-selection mode, and the place/lat-long resolution. It stops short of describing per-crop fields (next step, days left) in detail, but is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents crops, place, latitude and longitude, including the 'omit to use garden' behavior. The description restates the crops default and adds only the date format convention, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 (planting windows: start indoors, plant out, fall sow) scoped 'at any place, crop by crop'. It names the sibling get_plan and the condition that separates them, so an agent can route between them 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('works without a Siltwell account') and an explicit alternative with its own trigger ('for the signed-in user's own garden, get_plan ...'). It also describes the omitted-vs-supplied crops behavior, which tells the agent how to call it in two distinct modes.

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