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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that only 'public' records are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits what happens when neither identifier matches or when both are supplied (the schema's oneOf permits either, not both).

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the positive trigger is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Efficient, though it could have spent one more clause on identifier format rather than stopping where it does.

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 described, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. The definition is nearly complete for a two-key lookup; the remaining gap is the input format of normalizedName and the ambiguity of supplying both keys at once.

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 does name both parameters and establishes that either identifier is an exact-match lookup key, which is real added meaning. However, it says nothing about how normalizedName should be normalized or what shape a cultivarReferenceId takes, leaving the caller to guess the input 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 ('get the exact public cultivar record') and scopes it to the public catalog, which immediately distinguishes it from mutating siblings like link_listing_to_cultivar or update_listing. The named sibling search_cultivars further pins down its role.

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 an explicit trigger condition (user already has a cultivarReferenceId or normalizedName), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for fuzzy search'), and the exact alternative to call instead (daylily.search_cultivars first). This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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