Clima del 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds the location prerequisite, but says nothing about where the weather comes from, whether it is cached/live, or how failure is surfaced when no location 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?

One short sentence with the subject front-loaded and the constraint tucked into a parenthetical — nothing wasted. It is borderline terse given the unstated failure semantics, but there is no filler to cut.

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 single-parameter read with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present: what it returns (current weather) and the precondition. The main gap is error behavior when the crop has no location, which is the one thing an agent realistically needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantics (24-char hex crop identifier). The description only implies the crop reference via 'del cultivo' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: current weather at the crop's location, which is clearly distinguishable from sensor-reading siblings like get_latest_reading and get_metric_series. It never names an alternative tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical gives one real precondition (the crop must have a location), which is useful selection criteria. Otherwise there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_latest_reading or get_crop_insights, and no statement of what happens when the precondition fails.

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