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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing quota cost ('Consumes one agreed calculation call') and side-effect bounds ('No automatic care, publication or persistent write; human chooses whether to import'). This clarifies that despite readOnlyHint=false there is no persistent mutation, adding real value beyond structured fields.

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?

The core action and constraints are front-loaded into a compact, single-paragraph description with the quota and side-effect limits at the end. A few phrases ('unchanged Rust result', 'agreed calculation') are jargon-heavy but the sizing is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still names them. For a tool that consumes a shared calculation call, the definition covers behavior, quota cost, and side-effect scope adequately; only parameter format detail is thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates max_days and its 1–21 range (already in the schema) and gives useful content hints for care_json ('ration, access, ventilation, incubator'), but does not explain the journal_json/care_json structure or required format.

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 and resource: 'Advance a farm journal to the next detected important moment,' which an agent can act on. It is reasonably distinct from the many *_run and *_get siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides implied usage ('checked daily for at most max_days', 'human chooses whether to import') but never states when to use this versus siblings like farm_autopilot_run or farm_compare_run, nor any preconditions or when-not conditions. Context is inferable but not spelled out.

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