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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds real value by describing the returned structure (per-stage start day, end day, conditions, plus total days to harvest). That detail matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure behavior for an unknown slug.

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 zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads when to reach for it. Nothing repeats the name or title needlessly.

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 read-only, single-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose, return shape and a usage trigger well enough to call it confidently without an output schema. The only gap is undefined behavior when the slug is not found.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving the 'pearl-oyster' example. The description adds nothing about the slug, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 states a specific resource (a day-by-day grow timeline for one mushroom) and enumerates what the result contains: stage start/end days, conditions, and total days to harvest. This makes it clearly distinguishable from get_profile, get_chamber_guide and search_grow_content, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 for how long does X take to grow' gives a concrete query pattern that maps well onto the single-slug input. It provides a clear positive trigger but no exclusions or guidance about when to prefer get_profile or search_grow_content instead.

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