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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states inputs (surface_m2, plant_type, season) and outputs (L/week and watering frequency). However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or potential side effects. The description adds value beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value. It efficiently communicates the core function and provides a pointer to related tools.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values, but it does mention L/week and watering frequency. It references related tools for completeness. However, it omits crucial details like unit assumptions or seasonal adjustments, which would benefit the agent.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the tool's description mentions 'climate' and 'plant mix', which do not match the schema's parameters ('plant_type', 'season'). This inconsistency can confuse agents. The description does not add meaningful context beyond schema-description overlap; in fact, it introduces ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compute weekly water needs for a garden by area and plant type. Use for irrigation planning.' It specifies the verb (Compute), resource (weekly water needs), and scope (garden by area and plant type). It also differentiates from siblings by referencing 'list_bundles' for related 'jardinage' calculators.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use for irrigation planning.' It also directs users to see 'list_bundles' for related calculators, implying when other tools might be more appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, which would be helpful.

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