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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond that by enumerating what is returned (six channels, 29 sensors, presets, limits) and explicitly disclosing negative behaviors: no run, no persistent write, no LLM call.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads, then constraints. Efficient, though slightly information-packed in the first sentence.

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 explained, yet the description still summarizes contents. Combined with explicit exclusions (no run/write/LLM), an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument retrieval tool, consistent with the empty schema.

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 (Read) and resource (GardenScript 0.6 farm.v1 policy) with concrete scope: six decision channels, 29 sensors, exact intention expansion. Distinguishes itself from siblings like farm_policy_run and farm_policy_validate by explicitly stating it performs no run and no write.

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?

Explicitly directs 'Read before writing a farm policy,' giving clear usage context and sequencing relative to farm_policy_run. Does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the read-before-write guidance is actionable.

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