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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description mainly restates the write/append nature ('Adds a record each time', 'WRITE:'). It adds the concrete POST route and parent-type scoping, but says nothing about permissions, validation failures, or what a partial/invalid unit does — a modest addition on an already-annotated tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences — operation type, entity and required fields, then append behavior and route. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

With nine parameters, 22% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what the tool returns (harvest record id?) and leaves most optional fields undefined. Enough to identify the action, not enough to call it richly.

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 about 22% of the nine parameters are documented in the schema, so the description must compensate, and it only covers qty/unit and the parent/parent_id pairing. It never explains the optional date, grade, price, description, or batch_number fields, leaving six of nine parameters without any semantic guidance.

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 (record), resource (harvest), and scope (for an animal OR crop planting), plus the underlying endpoint POST /{animals|crops}/{id}/harvests. The 'WRITE' prefix and 'Adds a record each time' make it unambiguously distinct from the sibling list_harvests read tool.

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 implies usage (create a new harvest entry with quantity and unit) and hints that repeats append rather than replace, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over farmbrite_list_harvests or any update path, nor any prerequisites such as needing harvested crops/animals to exist first. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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