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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: the advertised return payload is redundant with the output schema, and no assumptions, precision caveats, or failure modes are disclosed.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the bundle pointer relegated to the end. Every clause carries information.

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 simple deterministic, closed-world calculator with full annotations, complete required params and an output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor gaps: no statement of what the estimate assumes (e.g. climate/frost independence) or that all three inputs are mandatory.

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 100% and the region enum already documents the +10/-10/-15 day offsets, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description restates the inputs without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Estimate') plus resource ('harvest date for vegetables') and names the two driving inputs (sowing date, region). It is clearly distinguishable from garden-adjacent siblings like calculate_seed_quantity or calculate_garden_soil, though it does not explicitly contrast against them.

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 only guidance is a cross-reference to list_bundles for 'jardinage' calculators, which is a discovery pointer rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of prerequisites, when a different tool fits better, or limits on applicability.

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