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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered without the prose. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that (no note on determinism of results, or that rainfall defaults when omitted, though that lives in the schema), so this is a minimum-viable 3 for a pure stateless calculator.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the cross-reference. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 deterministic calculator with full schema documentation, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on when-not-to-use, but nothing essential is missing given the structured metadata.

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 reported at 100%, with enums documented for season, grass_type and a default/minimum for weekly_rainfall_mm, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description merely restates those three inputs, adding no units or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Calculate recommended lawn mowing interval,' with the determining inputs (grass type, season, rainfall) named inline. This is clearly distinct from the nearest siblings (calculate_lawn_seed, calculate_garden_water_needs, calculate_garden_sunlight_hours) because the output is a mowing interval, not a quantity of seed or water.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related jardinage calculators,' which points at a discovery tool rather than a competing calculator, so it does not help the agent choose between lawn/garden siblings.

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