Ver un cultivo

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds value by telling the agent the response contains automation, health and last-reading sections, which is behavioral context useful for deciding when this call replaces several narrower ones. It omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown crop_id).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the payload contents after; no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage and a fully described parameter, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only missing piece is guidance on how this differs from specialized siblings like get_crop_insights or get_latest_reading.

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 parameter crop_id is documented with its hex-24 pattern, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, which is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Devuelve el detalle') and resource ('un cultivo') and enumerates the detail sections (lugar, automatización, salud, última lectura), which implicitly separates it from get_crop_weather, get_crop_insights and get_latest_reading. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no reference to alternatives, even though the sibling list contains several adjacent reads (get_crop_insights, get_crop_weather, get_latest_reading). The word 'detalle' implies a full-record fetch versus a specialized read, but the agent must infer the choice.

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