Where to touch grass

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

The annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about the detected location and the parallel call to grass_conditions, but it does not clarify potential side effects or return format. The description implies a read-only suggestion tool, but the readOnlyHint=false annotation leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, trigger, param semantics, and parallel call instruction. No fluff, front-loaded with the main verb, and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, param behavior, and how to combine with another tool. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but given the simplicity and context, it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional neighborhood parameter, which is the baseline. The description adds value by explaining that this parameter overrides the detected location, clarifying its optionality and purpose beyond the schema's simple description.

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 clearly states the tool 'suggests nearby places to touch grass', which is a specific verb + resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling grass_conditions by mentioning the parallel call. The purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to call it: 'when the user asks where to go, or after deciding they need to go outside.' It also provides a specific instruction to call grass_conditions in parallel. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like touched_grass or gotta_go, though the parallel call guidance implies some differentiation.

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