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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: lb/oz are normalized to grams on storage, and the active planting is resolved automatically. It omits return behavior and permission requirements, but the annotation baseline is already covered.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately grounded in concrete examples. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary flow and unit handling but leaves the plant-vs-plantingId relationship, notes semantics, and the response shape unaddressed. The schema picks up garden and harvestedAt defaults, but the overall picture is only adequately complete.

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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the quantity/unit pair through examples, the lb/oz-to-grams conversion, and that the planting is resolved automatically (hinting plant/plantingId may be optional), but it says nothing about notes, garden, or harvestedAt.

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 pairs a specific verb (record) with a specific resource (harvest) and reinforces it with two concrete examples of the natural-language input it accepts. An agent can distinguish it from update_harvest or get_harvests, though the description never names those siblings 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?

It hints at one usage behavior ('resolves the plant's active planting automatically') but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like update_harvest or log_event, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone which tool fits a given situation.

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