Check a plant protection product

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the response fields (authorisation state, expiry, formulation, active substances, uses), the effect of crop_eppo, and that a product-page link is included. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the baseline is lower with annotations present.

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 front-loaded with a key constraint (free, no API key), then states the lookup behavior, then the optional-parameter effect, then the link. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return data, which it does by naming the authorisation state, expiry date, formulation, active substances, authorised uses, and product-page link. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that crop_eppo causes the result to state whether the product is authorised on that crop, which clarifies the parameter's behavioral effect rather than merely restating its type and format.

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 (looks up) and resource (one product by official registration number in a country's register), and distinguishes itself from the sibling search_plant_protection_products by emphasizing a single registration lookup rather than a search. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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?

Clear context is given: use this when you have a single registration number and country, with optional crop_eppo for crop-specific authorisation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling search_plant_protection_products, so the alternative is left implicit rather than stated.

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