Perfiles de cultivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the content scope ('optimal ranges by crop type') and does not describe return format, units, or whether all crop profiles are returned.

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 fragment with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter lookup tool.

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 read-only tool this may be sufficient, but with no output schema the description could do more to explain what the returned profiles contain and how they relate to sibling tools. It does not state whether the profiles are returned for all crop types or only referenced by type.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are minimal. The schema already communicates this via an empty properties object, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 states the resource content clearly: recommended optimal ranges by crop type, which adds meaning beyond the tool name and title. However, it does not explicitly say that the tool returns these profiles or distinguish it from siblings such as get_crop or get_crop_insights.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any comparison to alternative tools. The agent can infer a simple lookup, but the description provides no routing criteria against siblings like get_crop, list_crops, or get_crop_insights.

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