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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: shortages pause after commitment, there is no future weather access, no LLM calls, no publication, no persistent game or daemon, and the human explicitly imports the result. It also previews the return structure, including export, source, witnesses, accepted/rejected commands, and costs.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and key constraints, but it is dense and uses fragmented clauses that make it harder to scan than necessary. Much of the text earns its place by adding behavioral constraints, yet some phrasing could be clearer and more organized.

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?

It provides rich operational constraints and an output preview, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage and no direct sibling guidance, an agent still lacks enough context to confidently set source, max_days, and budget_credits.

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 for four undocumented parameters. It clarifies that journal_json must be a COMPLETE v4/v5 journal and that budget_credits maps to a finite call budget, but it does not define source, max_days, or the exact constraints/meanings of the parameters.

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 (GardenScript 0.6 farm.v1 policy from a complete v4/v5 journal), so the agent knows what the tool does. It also rules out the official competition and the legacy precognitive helper, though it does not directly differentiate from farm_policy_validate or farm_autopilot_run.

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?

Gives clear usage context: run after user agreement, within a finite call budget, with no future weather archive access and no cancellation of bad days. It also names exclusions such as not being an official competition or legacy safety helper, but stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use instead for validation or autopilot scenarios.

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