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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and 'Free, read-only' largely restates them. It does add useful behavior beyond annotations: the 40-plant cap per call and the hint to consult 'total', but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the cap, or matching semantics for the multi-language search.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the payoff, then filters, then the cost/limit note. 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?

For a no-required-param search with no output schema, it covers purpose, filters, cost, and the result cap. Minor gap: it doesn't say what a returned 'key' looks like or how results are ordered, which matters since the output feeds another tool.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the description usefully names every filter (text, category, edible, sun, raised beds) and ties `limit` to the 40-per-call cap. It doesn't clarify multilanguage matching behavior, but the schema's `q` description already covers languages.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus named resource (GridGarden plant catalog, 441 species) and the concrete output (keys to pass as `plants` to studio_create_design). This clearly separates it from siblings like studio_catalog_bricks or studio_create_design.

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?

Explains the workflow role – get keys here, then pass them to studio_create_design – and lists the filter dimensions. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives for overlapping lookups, so not a 5.

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