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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the shape of what comes back (quantity, unit, grade, price, date, inventory added) and the underlying GET path, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 compact sentences: the resource and returned fields first, then the endpoint form. No filler, correctly front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus the endpoint covers the essentials; pagination guidance lives entirely in the schema descriptions, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so page, limit, parent and parent_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the parent enum ('animal or crop planting') and the endpoint template, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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+resource+scope: harvest records belonging to one animal or crop planting, and names the returned fields. This clearly separates it from farmbrite_create_harvest and from farmbrite_list_crops/farmbrite_list_animals, though it does not name 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?

Usage is only implied — you call it to inspect harvests of a given parent. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over another tool, no prerequisite or auth context, and no mention of how to page through results (the schema carries that instead).

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