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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST path 'GET /crops/{crop_id}', saying nothing about authentication, not-found behavior, or what the returned planting record contains.

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 terse fragments with zero wasted words and the resource concept front-loaded. The endpoint path partially restates information available elsewhere, but the definition is not padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the agent still has no information about the shape of the returned planting record or error cases. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the single crop_id parameter is documented as 'a Farmbrite id string' with a pattern constraint, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', which is the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the specific resource (one crop planting) and the retrieval mode (by id), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tool farmbrite_list_crops. No explicit sibling naming, but the singular 'one ... by id' framing is unambiguous.

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?

'By id' implies the tool is used when a crop_id is already known, and the sibling farmbrite_list_crops covers discovery. This is only implied; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on where an id comes from.

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