rb209_arable_crop_info1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a GET request (implying read-only) and that it returns an individual record, but it does not mention possible 404 behavior, authentication requirements, response shape, or any error semantics. For a simple read endpoint this is moderately transparent but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the endpoint path before the semantic description. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter GET tool, though it partly repeats information already present in the tool name and schema.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: two required integer parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description identifies the resource and both filter IDs, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, since there is no output schema, an agent is left without any indication of what fields or structure the returned 'crop info 1' contains.

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%, with both cropTypeId and cropInfo1Id already documented as 'The ... id to filter on.' The description only restates this filtering relationship and adds no new meaning about parameter formats, ranges, or how the IDs relate to each other. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already covers the parameters.

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 names the HTTP verb and resource ('GET /api/Arable/CropInfo1/{cropTypeId}/{cropInfo1Id}') and states that it returns an individual crop info 1 record filtered by two IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like rb209_arable_crop_info1s and rb209_arable_crop_info1s_by_type, though it stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Individual crop info 1' and 'filtered by crop type id and crop info 1 id' implies this tool is for fetching a single record when both IDs are known. However, it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over the plural or by-type sibling endpoints, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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