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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces and expands on these by confirming there is no calculation or publication, and by noting the output is 'JSON plan, NOT GardenScript,' which is a meaningful behavioral clue beyond the annotations' safety flags.

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 short sentences each carry distinct value: what is read, what is explicitly excluded, and what format the result takes. The key information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero parameterschers an output schema, the annotations, and a description that specifies the exact source content, boundaries, and output format, the agent has all the contextual information needed to invoke this tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema has zero parameters no required or optional inputs — so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still provides useful context about what a caller will receive, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 names a concrete verb ('read') and a precise resource ('chapter 2 stewardship-v1: exact teaching farm J95'), then lists exactly what the returned content contains. It also draws clear boundaries ('not the player's private farm', 'No calculation or publication'), which differentiates this from sibling tools that operate on private or dynamic farms.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: to inspect a fixed, teaching-oriented campaign snapshot rather than to calculate, publish, or access a player's private farm. It provides clear exclusions and context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as farm_campaign_run, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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