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

Richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: deterministic Rust rules, no live LLM, explicit exclusions (no sales, no new animals, no publication, no background daemon), and the fact that it returns a replayable journal with per-action reasons/costs. Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints, so this extra context is valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraints, then behavior, then return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; could be slightly tightened but is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simulated multi-day tour with budget and command limits), it covers scope, determinism, exclusions, and return characteristics. The presence of an output schema means it needn't detail the journal structure, so the description is complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of max_days (1–7 simulated days), budget_credits (0–1000 game credits), and the implicit 64-command cap, though journal_json's format/constraints (maxLength 65536) are left to the schema. The description adds real meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 (Run) and resource (bounded pantry-oriented farmer tour), plus explicit scope (simulated days, credits, command cap). Distinguishes itself from sibling farm_* tools by naming the exact simulation semantics and 'not a live LLM'.

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?

Implies usage via 'after user agreement' and 'a human chooses whether to import', but doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus siblings like farm_policy_run or farm_compare_run. The gating condition (user agreement) is stated, which is better than nothing but not full routing guidance.

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