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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: responses are 'short' and 'sourced' (bounded, cited answers) and the tool 'does not read member records', a privacy boundary the annotations do not express. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-format detail is acceptable.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the usage directive comes first and the scope exclusion last. The domain enumeration is dense but each item maps to a distinct workflow, so it earns its space.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, covered topics, and the key negative constraint. The only material gap is how to formulate the query argument, which is minor given the single obvious parameter name.

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% for the single required 'query' parameter, and the description says nothing about it — no indication that it should be a natural-language question, no guidance on scope or phrasing, and no mention of the 2-200 character bounds. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('short, sourced help') and enumerates the covered domains (cultivar search, listing status, lists, photos, profile content, import, billing), which clearly separates it from the data-retrieval siblings. It never says outright that this is a documentation/help corpus rather than live data, but the phrase 'sourced help' plus the domain list makes the intent legible.

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?

'Use this for short, sourced help with...' gives an explicit when-to-use condition, and 'It does not read member records' is an explicit exclusion that steers the agent toward get_profile/get_listing for actual data. It stops short of naming those alternative tools, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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